law offices of walter m. luers, llc 105 belvidere avenue ... · pdf filedefendant kelly...
TRANSCRIPT
Law Offices of Walter M Luers LLC
105 Belvidere Avenue
PO Box 527
Oxford New Jersey 07863-0527
908-453-2147
Counsel for Plaintiff
JOHN PAFF SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
Plaintiff LAW DIVISION CIVIL PART
CAMDEN COUNTY
vs DOCKET NO CAM-L-002865-11
RUNNEMEDE BOARD OF Civil Action
EDUCATION RECORD
CUSTODIAN OF THE RUNNEMEDE
BOARD OF EDUCATION and
KELLY BRAZELTON
Defendants
COMPLAINT
Plaintiff John Paff through his counsel Law Offices of Walter M Luers LLC and by
way of complaint against the Defendants Runnemede Board of Education and Records
Custodian of the Runnemede Board of Education alleges as follows
Preliminary Statement
1 This is an action under the Open Public Records Act NJSA 471A-1 et seq
the Senator Byron M Baer Open Public Meetings Act NJSA 104-6 et seq and the
common law right of access seeking to require the Board to a) disclose to the public
unredacted executive session meeting minutes and the precise reasons why it entered into a
Settlement AgreementRelease with former Business Administrator Kelly Brazelton b)
provide the public going forward with greater detail as to the reasons for its nonpublic
Page 2
(closed or executive) meetings and c) to record going forward more comprehensible
minutes of its nonpublic meetings
Parties
2 Plaintiff John Paff (ldquoPlaintiffrdquo) is an individual who resides in Franklin
Township Somerset County New Jersey and receives mail at PO Box 5424 Somerset NJ
08875
3 Defendant Runnemede Board of Education (Defendant Board) maintains its
offices at 505 W Third Avenue Runnemede New Jersey and is a public body as that term
is defined by NJSA 104-8(a)
4 Defendant Record Custodian of the Runnemede Board of Education
(Defendant Custodian) maintains her offices at 505 W Third Avenue Runnemede New
Jersey and is a ldquoCustodian of a government recordrdquo as that term is defined by NJSA
471A-11
5 Defendant Kelly Brazelton (Defendant Brazelton) is a former Business
Administrator of the Defendant Board and is named as a Defendant in accordance with
R428-1(a) to provide her with an opportunity if she chooses to seek to protect any
confidentiality interest she may allege to have in the records and information this lawsuit
seeks to disclose
Venue
6 Venue is properly laid in Camden County since the cause of action arose in
Camden County R43-2(a)
Page 3
Factual Allegations
7 On October 10 2010 Defendant Board entered into a Separation
AgreementRelease with Defendant Brazelton which provided among other things that
Brazelton would be on a paid leave of absence until April 15 2011 A copy of the
Separation AgreementRelease is attached to this Complaint as Exhibit pages 20 through
25
8 On March 5 2011 Barbara S Rothschild a writer for the Courier Post
published an article entitled Idled officials payout riles Runnemede A copy of the article
taken off the Internet together with reader comments is attached to this Verified
Complaint as Exhibit pages 26 through 33
9 The Courier Post article quotes Defendant Brazeltons attorney as stating that
[t]here was a disagreement between the board and [Brazelton] that involved a hostile
work environment The attorney was also quoted as saying that the disagreement was
resolved by the Settlement AgreementRelease and that both sides decided to move on
10 The Courier Post article also quoted Runnemede Superintendant Nancy Ward
as stating that the Settlement AgreementRelease was signed [i]n order to avoid litigation
Later in the article in response to local citizen Dan Conards questions Ward is quoted as
saying that Separation AgreementRelease was the most responsible think the district
could have done Was it a bitter pill to swallow It took the board (a while) before they felt
it was something they could do but it makes the most sense
Page 4
11 The Courier Post article also quoted New Jersey School Boards Association
Mike Yaple as saying that [n]o school board willingly enters into an agreement like this
one [b]ut even though its not a popular decision its the lesser of two evils
12 The Courier Post article also said that Board officials would not comment on
specifics citing confidentiality
13 On April 7 2011 Plaintiff submitted a records request to the Defendant
Board The request which is attached to this Complaint as Exhibit Pages 1 and 2 notes
that the Boards decision to enter into the Separation AgreementRelease with Brazelton
was controversial and matter of legitimate public interest Among other records the
request asked for were the minutes from Defendant Boards July 28 2010 and August 26
2010 nonpublic (ie closed or executive) meetings together with the resolutions that in
accordance with NJSA 104-13 authorized those closed meetings
14 Plaintiff had specifically requested the minutes from the July 28 2010 and
August 26 2010 nonpublic meetings because an August 26 2010 weblog entry by local
citizen Dan Conard stated that during that meeting the board went into executive session
[and] no one knows what went on [except the board members Conards weblog which is
attached to this Complaint as Exhibit Page 33 also reported that at last months meeting
(ie the July 28 2010 meeting) a few staffers went back into the [closed] meeting to bring
up their complaints and that [t]he rumor was a conflict that some staffers had with their
boss Kelly Brazelton Reporting on the August 26 2010 meeting Conards weblog
reported that the Boards attorney was not able to discuss in detail about[Brazelton] and
Page 5
whats going on with her job but was able to say she is on paid leave [but was] not able
to comment when or if [Brazelton] is coming back
15 On April 21 2011 Defendants Board attorney responded to Plaintiffrsquos April 7
2011 request by providing Plaintiff with a) a one-page e-mail b) a one-page document
entitled Documents Exempt from OPRA Request followed by twenty-one (21) pages of
responsive documents The response is attached to this Complaint as Exhibit Pages 3
through 25
16 Among the records disclosed in response to Plaintiffrsquos request were a)
redacted minutes of the Boards July 28 2010 nonpublic session which took place between
728 pm and 823 pm (Exhibit Page 5) b) unredacted minutes from the Boards July 28
2010 nonpublic meeting that took place between 858 pm and 1000 pm (Exhibit Page 6)
and c) redacted minutes of the Boards August 26 2010 nonpublic session which took place
between 7 pm and 750 pm (Exhibit Page 7)
17 Even though the Board furnished Plaintiff with a Documents Exempt from
OPRA request that document gave Plaintiff no real sense of what was discussed during
the two meeting for which Plaintiff was given redacted minutes Moreover the substance of
the unredacted minutes from the July 28 2010 858 pm meeting--that lasted over an
hour--disclose only that Mr Phil Stern addressed the Board of Education about personnel
issues
18 On May 7 2011 after reviewing the records that were sent to Plaintiff in
response to Plaintiffrsquos request Plaintiff wrote to the Board both as an individual and also
as the Chairman of the New Jersey Libertarian Partys Open Government Advocacy
Page 6
Project to complain about a) the lack of detail of its nonpublic meeting resolutions and b)
the lack of comprehensibility of its nonpublic meeting minutes Plaintiff specifically
informed the Board that it was Plaintiffrsquos intent to sue for declaratory and injunctive relief
in accordance with NJSA 104-16 unless Plaintiff receive assurances from the Board--
within a few days after its May 10 2011 meeting--that it will work in good faith to
improve the amount of information in both its closed session resolutions and minutes
(Emphasis in original) Plaintiffrsquos May 7 2011 letter to the Board with attachments is
attached to this Complaint as Exhibit Pages 35 through 48
19 On May 9 2011 Plaintiff received an e-mail from the Superintendent Ward
advising Plaintiff that Plaintiffrsquos letter could not be discussed at the May 10 2011 meeting
but would be addressed at the following meeting which would probably be held on May 25
2011 Ms Wards May 9 2011 e-mail is attached as Exhibit Pages 51 through 52
20 In addition to writing to the Board on May 7 2011 Plaintiff also submitted
another records request that asked for new copies of certain nonpublic meeting minutes
redacted as narrowly as possible if at all In the same request Plaintiff asked that the
specific legal basis for each redaction be explained in a manner consistent with law My
May 7 2011 records request is attached to this Complaint as Exhibit Pages 49 through 50
21 On May 20 2011 Board Attorney Stern responded to Plaintiffrsquos May 7 2011
request by providing Plaintiff with a) a one-page e-mail b) a one-page document entitled
Documents Exempt from OPRA Request of John Paff followed by twenty-three (23) pages
of responsive documents The response is attached to this Complaint as Exhibit Pages 53
through 77
Page 7
22 As of the date of this Complaint the Board has not responded to Plaintiffrsquos
May 7 2011 letter
FIRST COUNT
(OPEN PUBLIC RECORDS VIOLATION)
23 Defendant Custodian violated NJSA 471A-5(g) by not providing Plaintiff
with a sufficient specific basis for the redactions applied to the Boards nonpublic meeting
minutes
24 Defendant Custodian has not met its burden of proving that the redactions
applied to the Boards nonpublic meeting minutes are lawful
WHEREFORE Plaintiff demands
A A declaration that the reasons Defendant Custodian provided for the
redactions are insufficient
B An order compelling Defendant Custodian to provide a proper privilege log to
be filed with the Court and served upon Plaintiff
C That the redacted nonpublic minutes furnished to Plaintiff be examined by the
Court in camera
D That after an in camera inspection either unredacted or more narrowly
redacted versions of the minutes with the redactions fully and properly explained be
provided to me
E Costs of this action and a reasonable attorney fee
F Any other relief that the Court deems appropriate
Page 8
SECOND COUNT
(COMMON LAW RIGHT OF ACCESS)
25 Plaintiff (and the publics) interest in seeing unredacted versions of the
minutes that Defendant Custodian provided Plaintiff with exceeds the Boards
governmental and Brazletons personal interests in those minutes remaining redacted
WHEREFORE Plaintiff demands
G That the redacted nonpublic minutes furnished to Plaintiff be examined by the
Court in camera
H That after an in camera inspection either unredacted or more narrowly
redacted versions of the minutes with the redactions fully and properly explained be
provided to me
I Costs of this action and a reasonable attorney fee
J Any other relief that the Court deems appropriate
THIRD COUNT
(OPEN PUBLIC MEETINGS ACT)
26 The form of resolution that Defendant Board is using to go into nonpublic
session is too vague and does not comply with NJSA 104-13
27 The minutes of the Boards nonpublic sessions are not reasonably
comprehensible and therefore violate NJSA 104-14
WHEREFORE Plaintiff demands
Page 9
K That the Board be compelled to prepare new minutes of the nonpublic
meetings it held on March 31 2010 April 22 2010 July 28 2010 (two sessions) August 26
2010 and September 22 2010 that will record what occurred at those meetings in a
reasonably comprehensible matter or in the alternative that the Board be required to
disclose other contemporaneous records that will reveal the exact nature of the personnel
matters discussed during those nonpublic session particularly the exact nature of the
reasons why the Board entered into the Settlement AgreementRelease with Brazelton
L That the Board submit these newly prepared minutes to the Court for an in
camera review where they will be redacted only as necessary and disclosed to me
M That Defendant Board be enjoined going forward from excluding the public
from its meetings unless it first adopts a resolution in accordance with NJSA 104-13
that contains a level of detail to be prescribed by the Court
N That Defendant Board be enjoined going forward from recording minutes of
its nonpublic sessions that do not contain a level of detail to fixed by the Court
O The costs of this action
P Any other and further relief that the Court deems just
DESIGNATION OF TRIAL COUNSEL
Plaintiff hereby designates Walter M Luers as trial counsel
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO R 138-7(B)
I certify that confidential personal identifiers have been redacted from
documents now submitted to the Court and will be redacted from all documents submitted
in the future
1
From John Paff [paffpoboxcom]Sent Thursday April 07 2011 1011 PMTo vcarmodyrunnemedeschoolsorgSubject OPRA request
Ms Caromody
Please accept this e-mail as my request for government records pursuant to the Open Public Records Act (OPRA) and thecommon law right of access
Background
My understanding is that former Business Administrator Kelly Brazelton entered into a separation agreement with theBoard in or about August of 2010 that calls for her to receive her full salary until April 2011 As one blogger described inhis coverage of the August 26 2010 Board meeting there are rumors circulating as to why Brazelton went on paid leaveand why the Board agreed to pay her for going on leave Seehttpdansviewrunnemedewordpresscomcategorypolice
It seems to me that the public has a strong interest in learning the answers to these questions Accordingly my goal isto research this issue and make public my findings
As an additional issue I suspect that the Board may not be strictly adhering to the parts of the Open Public Meetings Actthat cover the resolutions that need to be passed before going into closed session and the need to make reasonablycomprehensible minutes of its closed sessions promptly available to the public to the extent that they are able to bedisclosed Accordingly I also wish to audit the Board on its compliance with these provisions
Records Requested
a) any separation agreement or other agreement between the Board and Ms Brazelton that relate to her taking paidleave
b) the resolutions that in accordance with NJSA 104-13 authorized the closed sessions held by the Board on July 282010 and August 26 2010 If the resolutions dont exist in any form other than being spread out in full in the minutesplease provide me with only the relevant pages from the minutes
c) the minutes of the Boards July 28 2010 and August 26 2010 closed sessions redacted as narrowly as possible if atall
d) the minutes of the three (3) most recent closed meetings of the Board for which minutes are publicly available inwhole or in part
e) the resolutions passed in accordance with NJSA 104-13 that authorized the three closed sessions for whichminutes are disclosed in accordance with d) above
f) the resolutions passed in accordance with NJSA 104-13 that authorized the three most recently held closedsessions held by the Board If the resolutions dont exist in any form other than being spread out in full in the minutesplease provide me with only the relevant pages from the minutes
g) all invoices for legal services submitted to the Board by any lawyer or firm covering legal services performed duringJuly and August 2010
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 1 of 77
2
Thank you
John Paff
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 2 of 77
Archived Thursday June 02 2011 80817 PMFrom Philip SternSent Thursday April 21 2011 95944 PMTo paffpoboxcomSubject OPRA RequestImportance NormalAttachments Response to Mr Paff Requestpdf
___________________________________
Hello Mr Paff Please be advised that we are the attorneys for the Runnemede SchoolDistrict Attached to this email is the Districtrsquos response to your OPRA request Do nothesitate to contact me if you have any questions or concerns regarding the attached Bestwishes for a happy holiday All the best Phil Stern
Philip E Stern
Adams Stern Gutierrez amp Lattiboudere LLC
The Legal Center
1037 Raymond Blvd Suite 710
Newark New Jersey 07102
(973) 735-2742 (office telephone)
(201) 914-2415 (cellular telephone)
(973) 735-2743 (office telefax)
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 3 of 77
Page 2
(closed or executive) meetings and c) to record going forward more comprehensible
minutes of its nonpublic meetings
Parties
2 Plaintiff John Paff (ldquoPlaintiffrdquo) is an individual who resides in Franklin
Township Somerset County New Jersey and receives mail at PO Box 5424 Somerset NJ
08875
3 Defendant Runnemede Board of Education (Defendant Board) maintains its
offices at 505 W Third Avenue Runnemede New Jersey and is a public body as that term
is defined by NJSA 104-8(a)
4 Defendant Record Custodian of the Runnemede Board of Education
(Defendant Custodian) maintains her offices at 505 W Third Avenue Runnemede New
Jersey and is a ldquoCustodian of a government recordrdquo as that term is defined by NJSA
471A-11
5 Defendant Kelly Brazelton (Defendant Brazelton) is a former Business
Administrator of the Defendant Board and is named as a Defendant in accordance with
R428-1(a) to provide her with an opportunity if she chooses to seek to protect any
confidentiality interest she may allege to have in the records and information this lawsuit
seeks to disclose
Venue
6 Venue is properly laid in Camden County since the cause of action arose in
Camden County R43-2(a)
Page 3
Factual Allegations
7 On October 10 2010 Defendant Board entered into a Separation
AgreementRelease with Defendant Brazelton which provided among other things that
Brazelton would be on a paid leave of absence until April 15 2011 A copy of the
Separation AgreementRelease is attached to this Complaint as Exhibit pages 20 through
25
8 On March 5 2011 Barbara S Rothschild a writer for the Courier Post
published an article entitled Idled officials payout riles Runnemede A copy of the article
taken off the Internet together with reader comments is attached to this Verified
Complaint as Exhibit pages 26 through 33
9 The Courier Post article quotes Defendant Brazeltons attorney as stating that
[t]here was a disagreement between the board and [Brazelton] that involved a hostile
work environment The attorney was also quoted as saying that the disagreement was
resolved by the Settlement AgreementRelease and that both sides decided to move on
10 The Courier Post article also quoted Runnemede Superintendant Nancy Ward
as stating that the Settlement AgreementRelease was signed [i]n order to avoid litigation
Later in the article in response to local citizen Dan Conards questions Ward is quoted as
saying that Separation AgreementRelease was the most responsible think the district
could have done Was it a bitter pill to swallow It took the board (a while) before they felt
it was something they could do but it makes the most sense
Page 4
11 The Courier Post article also quoted New Jersey School Boards Association
Mike Yaple as saying that [n]o school board willingly enters into an agreement like this
one [b]ut even though its not a popular decision its the lesser of two evils
12 The Courier Post article also said that Board officials would not comment on
specifics citing confidentiality
13 On April 7 2011 Plaintiff submitted a records request to the Defendant
Board The request which is attached to this Complaint as Exhibit Pages 1 and 2 notes
that the Boards decision to enter into the Separation AgreementRelease with Brazelton
was controversial and matter of legitimate public interest Among other records the
request asked for were the minutes from Defendant Boards July 28 2010 and August 26
2010 nonpublic (ie closed or executive) meetings together with the resolutions that in
accordance with NJSA 104-13 authorized those closed meetings
14 Plaintiff had specifically requested the minutes from the July 28 2010 and
August 26 2010 nonpublic meetings because an August 26 2010 weblog entry by local
citizen Dan Conard stated that during that meeting the board went into executive session
[and] no one knows what went on [except the board members Conards weblog which is
attached to this Complaint as Exhibit Page 33 also reported that at last months meeting
(ie the July 28 2010 meeting) a few staffers went back into the [closed] meeting to bring
up their complaints and that [t]he rumor was a conflict that some staffers had with their
boss Kelly Brazelton Reporting on the August 26 2010 meeting Conards weblog
reported that the Boards attorney was not able to discuss in detail about[Brazelton] and
Page 5
whats going on with her job but was able to say she is on paid leave [but was] not able
to comment when or if [Brazelton] is coming back
15 On April 21 2011 Defendants Board attorney responded to Plaintiffrsquos April 7
2011 request by providing Plaintiff with a) a one-page e-mail b) a one-page document
entitled Documents Exempt from OPRA Request followed by twenty-one (21) pages of
responsive documents The response is attached to this Complaint as Exhibit Pages 3
through 25
16 Among the records disclosed in response to Plaintiffrsquos request were a)
redacted minutes of the Boards July 28 2010 nonpublic session which took place between
728 pm and 823 pm (Exhibit Page 5) b) unredacted minutes from the Boards July 28
2010 nonpublic meeting that took place between 858 pm and 1000 pm (Exhibit Page 6)
and c) redacted minutes of the Boards August 26 2010 nonpublic session which took place
between 7 pm and 750 pm (Exhibit Page 7)
17 Even though the Board furnished Plaintiff with a Documents Exempt from
OPRA request that document gave Plaintiff no real sense of what was discussed during
the two meeting for which Plaintiff was given redacted minutes Moreover the substance of
the unredacted minutes from the July 28 2010 858 pm meeting--that lasted over an
hour--disclose only that Mr Phil Stern addressed the Board of Education about personnel
issues
18 On May 7 2011 after reviewing the records that were sent to Plaintiff in
response to Plaintiffrsquos request Plaintiff wrote to the Board both as an individual and also
as the Chairman of the New Jersey Libertarian Partys Open Government Advocacy
Page 6
Project to complain about a) the lack of detail of its nonpublic meeting resolutions and b)
the lack of comprehensibility of its nonpublic meeting minutes Plaintiff specifically
informed the Board that it was Plaintiffrsquos intent to sue for declaratory and injunctive relief
in accordance with NJSA 104-16 unless Plaintiff receive assurances from the Board--
within a few days after its May 10 2011 meeting--that it will work in good faith to
improve the amount of information in both its closed session resolutions and minutes
(Emphasis in original) Plaintiffrsquos May 7 2011 letter to the Board with attachments is
attached to this Complaint as Exhibit Pages 35 through 48
19 On May 9 2011 Plaintiff received an e-mail from the Superintendent Ward
advising Plaintiff that Plaintiffrsquos letter could not be discussed at the May 10 2011 meeting
but would be addressed at the following meeting which would probably be held on May 25
2011 Ms Wards May 9 2011 e-mail is attached as Exhibit Pages 51 through 52
20 In addition to writing to the Board on May 7 2011 Plaintiff also submitted
another records request that asked for new copies of certain nonpublic meeting minutes
redacted as narrowly as possible if at all In the same request Plaintiff asked that the
specific legal basis for each redaction be explained in a manner consistent with law My
May 7 2011 records request is attached to this Complaint as Exhibit Pages 49 through 50
21 On May 20 2011 Board Attorney Stern responded to Plaintiffrsquos May 7 2011
request by providing Plaintiff with a) a one-page e-mail b) a one-page document entitled
Documents Exempt from OPRA Request of John Paff followed by twenty-three (23) pages
of responsive documents The response is attached to this Complaint as Exhibit Pages 53
through 77
Page 7
22 As of the date of this Complaint the Board has not responded to Plaintiffrsquos
May 7 2011 letter
FIRST COUNT
(OPEN PUBLIC RECORDS VIOLATION)
23 Defendant Custodian violated NJSA 471A-5(g) by not providing Plaintiff
with a sufficient specific basis for the redactions applied to the Boards nonpublic meeting
minutes
24 Defendant Custodian has not met its burden of proving that the redactions
applied to the Boards nonpublic meeting minutes are lawful
WHEREFORE Plaintiff demands
A A declaration that the reasons Defendant Custodian provided for the
redactions are insufficient
B An order compelling Defendant Custodian to provide a proper privilege log to
be filed with the Court and served upon Plaintiff
C That the redacted nonpublic minutes furnished to Plaintiff be examined by the
Court in camera
D That after an in camera inspection either unredacted or more narrowly
redacted versions of the minutes with the redactions fully and properly explained be
provided to me
E Costs of this action and a reasonable attorney fee
F Any other relief that the Court deems appropriate
Page 8
SECOND COUNT
(COMMON LAW RIGHT OF ACCESS)
25 Plaintiff (and the publics) interest in seeing unredacted versions of the
minutes that Defendant Custodian provided Plaintiff with exceeds the Boards
governmental and Brazletons personal interests in those minutes remaining redacted
WHEREFORE Plaintiff demands
G That the redacted nonpublic minutes furnished to Plaintiff be examined by the
Court in camera
H That after an in camera inspection either unredacted or more narrowly
redacted versions of the minutes with the redactions fully and properly explained be
provided to me
I Costs of this action and a reasonable attorney fee
J Any other relief that the Court deems appropriate
THIRD COUNT
(OPEN PUBLIC MEETINGS ACT)
26 The form of resolution that Defendant Board is using to go into nonpublic
session is too vague and does not comply with NJSA 104-13
27 The minutes of the Boards nonpublic sessions are not reasonably
comprehensible and therefore violate NJSA 104-14
WHEREFORE Plaintiff demands
Page 9
K That the Board be compelled to prepare new minutes of the nonpublic
meetings it held on March 31 2010 April 22 2010 July 28 2010 (two sessions) August 26
2010 and September 22 2010 that will record what occurred at those meetings in a
reasonably comprehensible matter or in the alternative that the Board be required to
disclose other contemporaneous records that will reveal the exact nature of the personnel
matters discussed during those nonpublic session particularly the exact nature of the
reasons why the Board entered into the Settlement AgreementRelease with Brazelton
L That the Board submit these newly prepared minutes to the Court for an in
camera review where they will be redacted only as necessary and disclosed to me
M That Defendant Board be enjoined going forward from excluding the public
from its meetings unless it first adopts a resolution in accordance with NJSA 104-13
that contains a level of detail to be prescribed by the Court
N That Defendant Board be enjoined going forward from recording minutes of
its nonpublic sessions that do not contain a level of detail to fixed by the Court
O The costs of this action
P Any other and further relief that the Court deems just
DESIGNATION OF TRIAL COUNSEL
Plaintiff hereby designates Walter M Luers as trial counsel
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO R 138-7(B)
I certify that confidential personal identifiers have been redacted from
documents now submitted to the Court and will be redacted from all documents submitted
in the future
1
From John Paff [paffpoboxcom]Sent Thursday April 07 2011 1011 PMTo vcarmodyrunnemedeschoolsorgSubject OPRA request
Ms Caromody
Please accept this e-mail as my request for government records pursuant to the Open Public Records Act (OPRA) and thecommon law right of access
Background
My understanding is that former Business Administrator Kelly Brazelton entered into a separation agreement with theBoard in or about August of 2010 that calls for her to receive her full salary until April 2011 As one blogger described inhis coverage of the August 26 2010 Board meeting there are rumors circulating as to why Brazelton went on paid leaveand why the Board agreed to pay her for going on leave Seehttpdansviewrunnemedewordpresscomcategorypolice
It seems to me that the public has a strong interest in learning the answers to these questions Accordingly my goal isto research this issue and make public my findings
As an additional issue I suspect that the Board may not be strictly adhering to the parts of the Open Public Meetings Actthat cover the resolutions that need to be passed before going into closed session and the need to make reasonablycomprehensible minutes of its closed sessions promptly available to the public to the extent that they are able to bedisclosed Accordingly I also wish to audit the Board on its compliance with these provisions
Records Requested
a) any separation agreement or other agreement between the Board and Ms Brazelton that relate to her taking paidleave
b) the resolutions that in accordance with NJSA 104-13 authorized the closed sessions held by the Board on July 282010 and August 26 2010 If the resolutions dont exist in any form other than being spread out in full in the minutesplease provide me with only the relevant pages from the minutes
c) the minutes of the Boards July 28 2010 and August 26 2010 closed sessions redacted as narrowly as possible if atall
d) the minutes of the three (3) most recent closed meetings of the Board for which minutes are publicly available inwhole or in part
e) the resolutions passed in accordance with NJSA 104-13 that authorized the three closed sessions for whichminutes are disclosed in accordance with d) above
f) the resolutions passed in accordance with NJSA 104-13 that authorized the three most recently held closedsessions held by the Board If the resolutions dont exist in any form other than being spread out in full in the minutesplease provide me with only the relevant pages from the minutes
g) all invoices for legal services submitted to the Board by any lawyer or firm covering legal services performed duringJuly and August 2010
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 1 of 77
2
Thank you
John Paff
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 2 of 77
Archived Thursday June 02 2011 80817 PMFrom Philip SternSent Thursday April 21 2011 95944 PMTo paffpoboxcomSubject OPRA RequestImportance NormalAttachments Response to Mr Paff Requestpdf
___________________________________
Hello Mr Paff Please be advised that we are the attorneys for the Runnemede SchoolDistrict Attached to this email is the Districtrsquos response to your OPRA request Do nothesitate to contact me if you have any questions or concerns regarding the attached Bestwishes for a happy holiday All the best Phil Stern
Philip E Stern
Adams Stern Gutierrez amp Lattiboudere LLC
The Legal Center
1037 Raymond Blvd Suite 710
Newark New Jersey 07102
(973) 735-2742 (office telephone)
(201) 914-2415 (cellular telephone)
(973) 735-2743 (office telefax)
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 3 of 77
Page 3
Factual Allegations
7 On October 10 2010 Defendant Board entered into a Separation
AgreementRelease with Defendant Brazelton which provided among other things that
Brazelton would be on a paid leave of absence until April 15 2011 A copy of the
Separation AgreementRelease is attached to this Complaint as Exhibit pages 20 through
25
8 On March 5 2011 Barbara S Rothschild a writer for the Courier Post
published an article entitled Idled officials payout riles Runnemede A copy of the article
taken off the Internet together with reader comments is attached to this Verified
Complaint as Exhibit pages 26 through 33
9 The Courier Post article quotes Defendant Brazeltons attorney as stating that
[t]here was a disagreement between the board and [Brazelton] that involved a hostile
work environment The attorney was also quoted as saying that the disagreement was
resolved by the Settlement AgreementRelease and that both sides decided to move on
10 The Courier Post article also quoted Runnemede Superintendant Nancy Ward
as stating that the Settlement AgreementRelease was signed [i]n order to avoid litigation
Later in the article in response to local citizen Dan Conards questions Ward is quoted as
saying that Separation AgreementRelease was the most responsible think the district
could have done Was it a bitter pill to swallow It took the board (a while) before they felt
it was something they could do but it makes the most sense
Page 4
11 The Courier Post article also quoted New Jersey School Boards Association
Mike Yaple as saying that [n]o school board willingly enters into an agreement like this
one [b]ut even though its not a popular decision its the lesser of two evils
12 The Courier Post article also said that Board officials would not comment on
specifics citing confidentiality
13 On April 7 2011 Plaintiff submitted a records request to the Defendant
Board The request which is attached to this Complaint as Exhibit Pages 1 and 2 notes
that the Boards decision to enter into the Separation AgreementRelease with Brazelton
was controversial and matter of legitimate public interest Among other records the
request asked for were the minutes from Defendant Boards July 28 2010 and August 26
2010 nonpublic (ie closed or executive) meetings together with the resolutions that in
accordance with NJSA 104-13 authorized those closed meetings
14 Plaintiff had specifically requested the minutes from the July 28 2010 and
August 26 2010 nonpublic meetings because an August 26 2010 weblog entry by local
citizen Dan Conard stated that during that meeting the board went into executive session
[and] no one knows what went on [except the board members Conards weblog which is
attached to this Complaint as Exhibit Page 33 also reported that at last months meeting
(ie the July 28 2010 meeting) a few staffers went back into the [closed] meeting to bring
up their complaints and that [t]he rumor was a conflict that some staffers had with their
boss Kelly Brazelton Reporting on the August 26 2010 meeting Conards weblog
reported that the Boards attorney was not able to discuss in detail about[Brazelton] and
Page 5
whats going on with her job but was able to say she is on paid leave [but was] not able
to comment when or if [Brazelton] is coming back
15 On April 21 2011 Defendants Board attorney responded to Plaintiffrsquos April 7
2011 request by providing Plaintiff with a) a one-page e-mail b) a one-page document
entitled Documents Exempt from OPRA Request followed by twenty-one (21) pages of
responsive documents The response is attached to this Complaint as Exhibit Pages 3
through 25
16 Among the records disclosed in response to Plaintiffrsquos request were a)
redacted minutes of the Boards July 28 2010 nonpublic session which took place between
728 pm and 823 pm (Exhibit Page 5) b) unredacted minutes from the Boards July 28
2010 nonpublic meeting that took place between 858 pm and 1000 pm (Exhibit Page 6)
and c) redacted minutes of the Boards August 26 2010 nonpublic session which took place
between 7 pm and 750 pm (Exhibit Page 7)
17 Even though the Board furnished Plaintiff with a Documents Exempt from
OPRA request that document gave Plaintiff no real sense of what was discussed during
the two meeting for which Plaintiff was given redacted minutes Moreover the substance of
the unredacted minutes from the July 28 2010 858 pm meeting--that lasted over an
hour--disclose only that Mr Phil Stern addressed the Board of Education about personnel
issues
18 On May 7 2011 after reviewing the records that were sent to Plaintiff in
response to Plaintiffrsquos request Plaintiff wrote to the Board both as an individual and also
as the Chairman of the New Jersey Libertarian Partys Open Government Advocacy
Page 6
Project to complain about a) the lack of detail of its nonpublic meeting resolutions and b)
the lack of comprehensibility of its nonpublic meeting minutes Plaintiff specifically
informed the Board that it was Plaintiffrsquos intent to sue for declaratory and injunctive relief
in accordance with NJSA 104-16 unless Plaintiff receive assurances from the Board--
within a few days after its May 10 2011 meeting--that it will work in good faith to
improve the amount of information in both its closed session resolutions and minutes
(Emphasis in original) Plaintiffrsquos May 7 2011 letter to the Board with attachments is
attached to this Complaint as Exhibit Pages 35 through 48
19 On May 9 2011 Plaintiff received an e-mail from the Superintendent Ward
advising Plaintiff that Plaintiffrsquos letter could not be discussed at the May 10 2011 meeting
but would be addressed at the following meeting which would probably be held on May 25
2011 Ms Wards May 9 2011 e-mail is attached as Exhibit Pages 51 through 52
20 In addition to writing to the Board on May 7 2011 Plaintiff also submitted
another records request that asked for new copies of certain nonpublic meeting minutes
redacted as narrowly as possible if at all In the same request Plaintiff asked that the
specific legal basis for each redaction be explained in a manner consistent with law My
May 7 2011 records request is attached to this Complaint as Exhibit Pages 49 through 50
21 On May 20 2011 Board Attorney Stern responded to Plaintiffrsquos May 7 2011
request by providing Plaintiff with a) a one-page e-mail b) a one-page document entitled
Documents Exempt from OPRA Request of John Paff followed by twenty-three (23) pages
of responsive documents The response is attached to this Complaint as Exhibit Pages 53
through 77
Page 7
22 As of the date of this Complaint the Board has not responded to Plaintiffrsquos
May 7 2011 letter
FIRST COUNT
(OPEN PUBLIC RECORDS VIOLATION)
23 Defendant Custodian violated NJSA 471A-5(g) by not providing Plaintiff
with a sufficient specific basis for the redactions applied to the Boards nonpublic meeting
minutes
24 Defendant Custodian has not met its burden of proving that the redactions
applied to the Boards nonpublic meeting minutes are lawful
WHEREFORE Plaintiff demands
A A declaration that the reasons Defendant Custodian provided for the
redactions are insufficient
B An order compelling Defendant Custodian to provide a proper privilege log to
be filed with the Court and served upon Plaintiff
C That the redacted nonpublic minutes furnished to Plaintiff be examined by the
Court in camera
D That after an in camera inspection either unredacted or more narrowly
redacted versions of the minutes with the redactions fully and properly explained be
provided to me
E Costs of this action and a reasonable attorney fee
F Any other relief that the Court deems appropriate
Page 8
SECOND COUNT
(COMMON LAW RIGHT OF ACCESS)
25 Plaintiff (and the publics) interest in seeing unredacted versions of the
minutes that Defendant Custodian provided Plaintiff with exceeds the Boards
governmental and Brazletons personal interests in those minutes remaining redacted
WHEREFORE Plaintiff demands
G That the redacted nonpublic minutes furnished to Plaintiff be examined by the
Court in camera
H That after an in camera inspection either unredacted or more narrowly
redacted versions of the minutes with the redactions fully and properly explained be
provided to me
I Costs of this action and a reasonable attorney fee
J Any other relief that the Court deems appropriate
THIRD COUNT
(OPEN PUBLIC MEETINGS ACT)
26 The form of resolution that Defendant Board is using to go into nonpublic
session is too vague and does not comply with NJSA 104-13
27 The minutes of the Boards nonpublic sessions are not reasonably
comprehensible and therefore violate NJSA 104-14
WHEREFORE Plaintiff demands
Page 9
K That the Board be compelled to prepare new minutes of the nonpublic
meetings it held on March 31 2010 April 22 2010 July 28 2010 (two sessions) August 26
2010 and September 22 2010 that will record what occurred at those meetings in a
reasonably comprehensible matter or in the alternative that the Board be required to
disclose other contemporaneous records that will reveal the exact nature of the personnel
matters discussed during those nonpublic session particularly the exact nature of the
reasons why the Board entered into the Settlement AgreementRelease with Brazelton
L That the Board submit these newly prepared minutes to the Court for an in
camera review where they will be redacted only as necessary and disclosed to me
M That Defendant Board be enjoined going forward from excluding the public
from its meetings unless it first adopts a resolution in accordance with NJSA 104-13
that contains a level of detail to be prescribed by the Court
N That Defendant Board be enjoined going forward from recording minutes of
its nonpublic sessions that do not contain a level of detail to fixed by the Court
O The costs of this action
P Any other and further relief that the Court deems just
DESIGNATION OF TRIAL COUNSEL
Plaintiff hereby designates Walter M Luers as trial counsel
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO R 138-7(B)
I certify that confidential personal identifiers have been redacted from
documents now submitted to the Court and will be redacted from all documents submitted
in the future
1
From John Paff [paffpoboxcom]Sent Thursday April 07 2011 1011 PMTo vcarmodyrunnemedeschoolsorgSubject OPRA request
Ms Caromody
Please accept this e-mail as my request for government records pursuant to the Open Public Records Act (OPRA) and thecommon law right of access
Background
My understanding is that former Business Administrator Kelly Brazelton entered into a separation agreement with theBoard in or about August of 2010 that calls for her to receive her full salary until April 2011 As one blogger described inhis coverage of the August 26 2010 Board meeting there are rumors circulating as to why Brazelton went on paid leaveand why the Board agreed to pay her for going on leave Seehttpdansviewrunnemedewordpresscomcategorypolice
It seems to me that the public has a strong interest in learning the answers to these questions Accordingly my goal isto research this issue and make public my findings
As an additional issue I suspect that the Board may not be strictly adhering to the parts of the Open Public Meetings Actthat cover the resolutions that need to be passed before going into closed session and the need to make reasonablycomprehensible minutes of its closed sessions promptly available to the public to the extent that they are able to bedisclosed Accordingly I also wish to audit the Board on its compliance with these provisions
Records Requested
a) any separation agreement or other agreement between the Board and Ms Brazelton that relate to her taking paidleave
b) the resolutions that in accordance with NJSA 104-13 authorized the closed sessions held by the Board on July 282010 and August 26 2010 If the resolutions dont exist in any form other than being spread out in full in the minutesplease provide me with only the relevant pages from the minutes
c) the minutes of the Boards July 28 2010 and August 26 2010 closed sessions redacted as narrowly as possible if atall
d) the minutes of the three (3) most recent closed meetings of the Board for which minutes are publicly available inwhole or in part
e) the resolutions passed in accordance with NJSA 104-13 that authorized the three closed sessions for whichminutes are disclosed in accordance with d) above
f) the resolutions passed in accordance with NJSA 104-13 that authorized the three most recently held closedsessions held by the Board If the resolutions dont exist in any form other than being spread out in full in the minutesplease provide me with only the relevant pages from the minutes
g) all invoices for legal services submitted to the Board by any lawyer or firm covering legal services performed duringJuly and August 2010
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 1 of 77
2
Thank you
John Paff
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 2 of 77
Archived Thursday June 02 2011 80817 PMFrom Philip SternSent Thursday April 21 2011 95944 PMTo paffpoboxcomSubject OPRA RequestImportance NormalAttachments Response to Mr Paff Requestpdf
___________________________________
Hello Mr Paff Please be advised that we are the attorneys for the Runnemede SchoolDistrict Attached to this email is the Districtrsquos response to your OPRA request Do nothesitate to contact me if you have any questions or concerns regarding the attached Bestwishes for a happy holiday All the best Phil Stern
Philip E Stern
Adams Stern Gutierrez amp Lattiboudere LLC
The Legal Center
1037 Raymond Blvd Suite 710
Newark New Jersey 07102
(973) 735-2742 (office telephone)
(201) 914-2415 (cellular telephone)
(973) 735-2743 (office telefax)
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 3 of 77
Page 4
11 The Courier Post article also quoted New Jersey School Boards Association
Mike Yaple as saying that [n]o school board willingly enters into an agreement like this
one [b]ut even though its not a popular decision its the lesser of two evils
12 The Courier Post article also said that Board officials would not comment on
specifics citing confidentiality
13 On April 7 2011 Plaintiff submitted a records request to the Defendant
Board The request which is attached to this Complaint as Exhibit Pages 1 and 2 notes
that the Boards decision to enter into the Separation AgreementRelease with Brazelton
was controversial and matter of legitimate public interest Among other records the
request asked for were the minutes from Defendant Boards July 28 2010 and August 26
2010 nonpublic (ie closed or executive) meetings together with the resolutions that in
accordance with NJSA 104-13 authorized those closed meetings
14 Plaintiff had specifically requested the minutes from the July 28 2010 and
August 26 2010 nonpublic meetings because an August 26 2010 weblog entry by local
citizen Dan Conard stated that during that meeting the board went into executive session
[and] no one knows what went on [except the board members Conards weblog which is
attached to this Complaint as Exhibit Page 33 also reported that at last months meeting
(ie the July 28 2010 meeting) a few staffers went back into the [closed] meeting to bring
up their complaints and that [t]he rumor was a conflict that some staffers had with their
boss Kelly Brazelton Reporting on the August 26 2010 meeting Conards weblog
reported that the Boards attorney was not able to discuss in detail about[Brazelton] and
Page 5
whats going on with her job but was able to say she is on paid leave [but was] not able
to comment when or if [Brazelton] is coming back
15 On April 21 2011 Defendants Board attorney responded to Plaintiffrsquos April 7
2011 request by providing Plaintiff with a) a one-page e-mail b) a one-page document
entitled Documents Exempt from OPRA Request followed by twenty-one (21) pages of
responsive documents The response is attached to this Complaint as Exhibit Pages 3
through 25
16 Among the records disclosed in response to Plaintiffrsquos request were a)
redacted minutes of the Boards July 28 2010 nonpublic session which took place between
728 pm and 823 pm (Exhibit Page 5) b) unredacted minutes from the Boards July 28
2010 nonpublic meeting that took place between 858 pm and 1000 pm (Exhibit Page 6)
and c) redacted minutes of the Boards August 26 2010 nonpublic session which took place
between 7 pm and 750 pm (Exhibit Page 7)
17 Even though the Board furnished Plaintiff with a Documents Exempt from
OPRA request that document gave Plaintiff no real sense of what was discussed during
the two meeting for which Plaintiff was given redacted minutes Moreover the substance of
the unredacted minutes from the July 28 2010 858 pm meeting--that lasted over an
hour--disclose only that Mr Phil Stern addressed the Board of Education about personnel
issues
18 On May 7 2011 after reviewing the records that were sent to Plaintiff in
response to Plaintiffrsquos request Plaintiff wrote to the Board both as an individual and also
as the Chairman of the New Jersey Libertarian Partys Open Government Advocacy
Page 6
Project to complain about a) the lack of detail of its nonpublic meeting resolutions and b)
the lack of comprehensibility of its nonpublic meeting minutes Plaintiff specifically
informed the Board that it was Plaintiffrsquos intent to sue for declaratory and injunctive relief
in accordance with NJSA 104-16 unless Plaintiff receive assurances from the Board--
within a few days after its May 10 2011 meeting--that it will work in good faith to
improve the amount of information in both its closed session resolutions and minutes
(Emphasis in original) Plaintiffrsquos May 7 2011 letter to the Board with attachments is
attached to this Complaint as Exhibit Pages 35 through 48
19 On May 9 2011 Plaintiff received an e-mail from the Superintendent Ward
advising Plaintiff that Plaintiffrsquos letter could not be discussed at the May 10 2011 meeting
but would be addressed at the following meeting which would probably be held on May 25
2011 Ms Wards May 9 2011 e-mail is attached as Exhibit Pages 51 through 52
20 In addition to writing to the Board on May 7 2011 Plaintiff also submitted
another records request that asked for new copies of certain nonpublic meeting minutes
redacted as narrowly as possible if at all In the same request Plaintiff asked that the
specific legal basis for each redaction be explained in a manner consistent with law My
May 7 2011 records request is attached to this Complaint as Exhibit Pages 49 through 50
21 On May 20 2011 Board Attorney Stern responded to Plaintiffrsquos May 7 2011
request by providing Plaintiff with a) a one-page e-mail b) a one-page document entitled
Documents Exempt from OPRA Request of John Paff followed by twenty-three (23) pages
of responsive documents The response is attached to this Complaint as Exhibit Pages 53
through 77
Page 7
22 As of the date of this Complaint the Board has not responded to Plaintiffrsquos
May 7 2011 letter
FIRST COUNT
(OPEN PUBLIC RECORDS VIOLATION)
23 Defendant Custodian violated NJSA 471A-5(g) by not providing Plaintiff
with a sufficient specific basis for the redactions applied to the Boards nonpublic meeting
minutes
24 Defendant Custodian has not met its burden of proving that the redactions
applied to the Boards nonpublic meeting minutes are lawful
WHEREFORE Plaintiff demands
A A declaration that the reasons Defendant Custodian provided for the
redactions are insufficient
B An order compelling Defendant Custodian to provide a proper privilege log to
be filed with the Court and served upon Plaintiff
C That the redacted nonpublic minutes furnished to Plaintiff be examined by the
Court in camera
D That after an in camera inspection either unredacted or more narrowly
redacted versions of the minutes with the redactions fully and properly explained be
provided to me
E Costs of this action and a reasonable attorney fee
F Any other relief that the Court deems appropriate
Page 8
SECOND COUNT
(COMMON LAW RIGHT OF ACCESS)
25 Plaintiff (and the publics) interest in seeing unredacted versions of the
minutes that Defendant Custodian provided Plaintiff with exceeds the Boards
governmental and Brazletons personal interests in those minutes remaining redacted
WHEREFORE Plaintiff demands
G That the redacted nonpublic minutes furnished to Plaintiff be examined by the
Court in camera
H That after an in camera inspection either unredacted or more narrowly
redacted versions of the minutes with the redactions fully and properly explained be
provided to me
I Costs of this action and a reasonable attorney fee
J Any other relief that the Court deems appropriate
THIRD COUNT
(OPEN PUBLIC MEETINGS ACT)
26 The form of resolution that Defendant Board is using to go into nonpublic
session is too vague and does not comply with NJSA 104-13
27 The minutes of the Boards nonpublic sessions are not reasonably
comprehensible and therefore violate NJSA 104-14
WHEREFORE Plaintiff demands
Page 9
K That the Board be compelled to prepare new minutes of the nonpublic
meetings it held on March 31 2010 April 22 2010 July 28 2010 (two sessions) August 26
2010 and September 22 2010 that will record what occurred at those meetings in a
reasonably comprehensible matter or in the alternative that the Board be required to
disclose other contemporaneous records that will reveal the exact nature of the personnel
matters discussed during those nonpublic session particularly the exact nature of the
reasons why the Board entered into the Settlement AgreementRelease with Brazelton
L That the Board submit these newly prepared minutes to the Court for an in
camera review where they will be redacted only as necessary and disclosed to me
M That Defendant Board be enjoined going forward from excluding the public
from its meetings unless it first adopts a resolution in accordance with NJSA 104-13
that contains a level of detail to be prescribed by the Court
N That Defendant Board be enjoined going forward from recording minutes of
its nonpublic sessions that do not contain a level of detail to fixed by the Court
O The costs of this action
P Any other and further relief that the Court deems just
DESIGNATION OF TRIAL COUNSEL
Plaintiff hereby designates Walter M Luers as trial counsel
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO R 138-7(B)
I certify that confidential personal identifiers have been redacted from
documents now submitted to the Court and will be redacted from all documents submitted
in the future
1
From John Paff [paffpoboxcom]Sent Thursday April 07 2011 1011 PMTo vcarmodyrunnemedeschoolsorgSubject OPRA request
Ms Caromody
Please accept this e-mail as my request for government records pursuant to the Open Public Records Act (OPRA) and thecommon law right of access
Background
My understanding is that former Business Administrator Kelly Brazelton entered into a separation agreement with theBoard in or about August of 2010 that calls for her to receive her full salary until April 2011 As one blogger described inhis coverage of the August 26 2010 Board meeting there are rumors circulating as to why Brazelton went on paid leaveand why the Board agreed to pay her for going on leave Seehttpdansviewrunnemedewordpresscomcategorypolice
It seems to me that the public has a strong interest in learning the answers to these questions Accordingly my goal isto research this issue and make public my findings
As an additional issue I suspect that the Board may not be strictly adhering to the parts of the Open Public Meetings Actthat cover the resolutions that need to be passed before going into closed session and the need to make reasonablycomprehensible minutes of its closed sessions promptly available to the public to the extent that they are able to bedisclosed Accordingly I also wish to audit the Board on its compliance with these provisions
Records Requested
a) any separation agreement or other agreement between the Board and Ms Brazelton that relate to her taking paidleave
b) the resolutions that in accordance with NJSA 104-13 authorized the closed sessions held by the Board on July 282010 and August 26 2010 If the resolutions dont exist in any form other than being spread out in full in the minutesplease provide me with only the relevant pages from the minutes
c) the minutes of the Boards July 28 2010 and August 26 2010 closed sessions redacted as narrowly as possible if atall
d) the minutes of the three (3) most recent closed meetings of the Board for which minutes are publicly available inwhole or in part
e) the resolutions passed in accordance with NJSA 104-13 that authorized the three closed sessions for whichminutes are disclosed in accordance with d) above
f) the resolutions passed in accordance with NJSA 104-13 that authorized the three most recently held closedsessions held by the Board If the resolutions dont exist in any form other than being spread out in full in the minutesplease provide me with only the relevant pages from the minutes
g) all invoices for legal services submitted to the Board by any lawyer or firm covering legal services performed duringJuly and August 2010
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 1 of 77
2
Thank you
John Paff
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 2 of 77
Archived Thursday June 02 2011 80817 PMFrom Philip SternSent Thursday April 21 2011 95944 PMTo paffpoboxcomSubject OPRA RequestImportance NormalAttachments Response to Mr Paff Requestpdf
___________________________________
Hello Mr Paff Please be advised that we are the attorneys for the Runnemede SchoolDistrict Attached to this email is the Districtrsquos response to your OPRA request Do nothesitate to contact me if you have any questions or concerns regarding the attached Bestwishes for a happy holiday All the best Phil Stern
Philip E Stern
Adams Stern Gutierrez amp Lattiboudere LLC
The Legal Center
1037 Raymond Blvd Suite 710
Newark New Jersey 07102
(973) 735-2742 (office telephone)
(201) 914-2415 (cellular telephone)
(973) 735-2743 (office telefax)
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 3 of 77
Page 5
whats going on with her job but was able to say she is on paid leave [but was] not able
to comment when or if [Brazelton] is coming back
15 On April 21 2011 Defendants Board attorney responded to Plaintiffrsquos April 7
2011 request by providing Plaintiff with a) a one-page e-mail b) a one-page document
entitled Documents Exempt from OPRA Request followed by twenty-one (21) pages of
responsive documents The response is attached to this Complaint as Exhibit Pages 3
through 25
16 Among the records disclosed in response to Plaintiffrsquos request were a)
redacted minutes of the Boards July 28 2010 nonpublic session which took place between
728 pm and 823 pm (Exhibit Page 5) b) unredacted minutes from the Boards July 28
2010 nonpublic meeting that took place between 858 pm and 1000 pm (Exhibit Page 6)
and c) redacted minutes of the Boards August 26 2010 nonpublic session which took place
between 7 pm and 750 pm (Exhibit Page 7)
17 Even though the Board furnished Plaintiff with a Documents Exempt from
OPRA request that document gave Plaintiff no real sense of what was discussed during
the two meeting for which Plaintiff was given redacted minutes Moreover the substance of
the unredacted minutes from the July 28 2010 858 pm meeting--that lasted over an
hour--disclose only that Mr Phil Stern addressed the Board of Education about personnel
issues
18 On May 7 2011 after reviewing the records that were sent to Plaintiff in
response to Plaintiffrsquos request Plaintiff wrote to the Board both as an individual and also
as the Chairman of the New Jersey Libertarian Partys Open Government Advocacy
Page 6
Project to complain about a) the lack of detail of its nonpublic meeting resolutions and b)
the lack of comprehensibility of its nonpublic meeting minutes Plaintiff specifically
informed the Board that it was Plaintiffrsquos intent to sue for declaratory and injunctive relief
in accordance with NJSA 104-16 unless Plaintiff receive assurances from the Board--
within a few days after its May 10 2011 meeting--that it will work in good faith to
improve the amount of information in both its closed session resolutions and minutes
(Emphasis in original) Plaintiffrsquos May 7 2011 letter to the Board with attachments is
attached to this Complaint as Exhibit Pages 35 through 48
19 On May 9 2011 Plaintiff received an e-mail from the Superintendent Ward
advising Plaintiff that Plaintiffrsquos letter could not be discussed at the May 10 2011 meeting
but would be addressed at the following meeting which would probably be held on May 25
2011 Ms Wards May 9 2011 e-mail is attached as Exhibit Pages 51 through 52
20 In addition to writing to the Board on May 7 2011 Plaintiff also submitted
another records request that asked for new copies of certain nonpublic meeting minutes
redacted as narrowly as possible if at all In the same request Plaintiff asked that the
specific legal basis for each redaction be explained in a manner consistent with law My
May 7 2011 records request is attached to this Complaint as Exhibit Pages 49 through 50
21 On May 20 2011 Board Attorney Stern responded to Plaintiffrsquos May 7 2011
request by providing Plaintiff with a) a one-page e-mail b) a one-page document entitled
Documents Exempt from OPRA Request of John Paff followed by twenty-three (23) pages
of responsive documents The response is attached to this Complaint as Exhibit Pages 53
through 77
Page 7
22 As of the date of this Complaint the Board has not responded to Plaintiffrsquos
May 7 2011 letter
FIRST COUNT
(OPEN PUBLIC RECORDS VIOLATION)
23 Defendant Custodian violated NJSA 471A-5(g) by not providing Plaintiff
with a sufficient specific basis for the redactions applied to the Boards nonpublic meeting
minutes
24 Defendant Custodian has not met its burden of proving that the redactions
applied to the Boards nonpublic meeting minutes are lawful
WHEREFORE Plaintiff demands
A A declaration that the reasons Defendant Custodian provided for the
redactions are insufficient
B An order compelling Defendant Custodian to provide a proper privilege log to
be filed with the Court and served upon Plaintiff
C That the redacted nonpublic minutes furnished to Plaintiff be examined by the
Court in camera
D That after an in camera inspection either unredacted or more narrowly
redacted versions of the minutes with the redactions fully and properly explained be
provided to me
E Costs of this action and a reasonable attorney fee
F Any other relief that the Court deems appropriate
Page 8
SECOND COUNT
(COMMON LAW RIGHT OF ACCESS)
25 Plaintiff (and the publics) interest in seeing unredacted versions of the
minutes that Defendant Custodian provided Plaintiff with exceeds the Boards
governmental and Brazletons personal interests in those minutes remaining redacted
WHEREFORE Plaintiff demands
G That the redacted nonpublic minutes furnished to Plaintiff be examined by the
Court in camera
H That after an in camera inspection either unredacted or more narrowly
redacted versions of the minutes with the redactions fully and properly explained be
provided to me
I Costs of this action and a reasonable attorney fee
J Any other relief that the Court deems appropriate
THIRD COUNT
(OPEN PUBLIC MEETINGS ACT)
26 The form of resolution that Defendant Board is using to go into nonpublic
session is too vague and does not comply with NJSA 104-13
27 The minutes of the Boards nonpublic sessions are not reasonably
comprehensible and therefore violate NJSA 104-14
WHEREFORE Plaintiff demands
Page 9
K That the Board be compelled to prepare new minutes of the nonpublic
meetings it held on March 31 2010 April 22 2010 July 28 2010 (two sessions) August 26
2010 and September 22 2010 that will record what occurred at those meetings in a
reasonably comprehensible matter or in the alternative that the Board be required to
disclose other contemporaneous records that will reveal the exact nature of the personnel
matters discussed during those nonpublic session particularly the exact nature of the
reasons why the Board entered into the Settlement AgreementRelease with Brazelton
L That the Board submit these newly prepared minutes to the Court for an in
camera review where they will be redacted only as necessary and disclosed to me
M That Defendant Board be enjoined going forward from excluding the public
from its meetings unless it first adopts a resolution in accordance with NJSA 104-13
that contains a level of detail to be prescribed by the Court
N That Defendant Board be enjoined going forward from recording minutes of
its nonpublic sessions that do not contain a level of detail to fixed by the Court
O The costs of this action
P Any other and further relief that the Court deems just
DESIGNATION OF TRIAL COUNSEL
Plaintiff hereby designates Walter M Luers as trial counsel
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO R 138-7(B)
I certify that confidential personal identifiers have been redacted from
documents now submitted to the Court and will be redacted from all documents submitted
in the future
1
From John Paff [paffpoboxcom]Sent Thursday April 07 2011 1011 PMTo vcarmodyrunnemedeschoolsorgSubject OPRA request
Ms Caromody
Please accept this e-mail as my request for government records pursuant to the Open Public Records Act (OPRA) and thecommon law right of access
Background
My understanding is that former Business Administrator Kelly Brazelton entered into a separation agreement with theBoard in or about August of 2010 that calls for her to receive her full salary until April 2011 As one blogger described inhis coverage of the August 26 2010 Board meeting there are rumors circulating as to why Brazelton went on paid leaveand why the Board agreed to pay her for going on leave Seehttpdansviewrunnemedewordpresscomcategorypolice
It seems to me that the public has a strong interest in learning the answers to these questions Accordingly my goal isto research this issue and make public my findings
As an additional issue I suspect that the Board may not be strictly adhering to the parts of the Open Public Meetings Actthat cover the resolutions that need to be passed before going into closed session and the need to make reasonablycomprehensible minutes of its closed sessions promptly available to the public to the extent that they are able to bedisclosed Accordingly I also wish to audit the Board on its compliance with these provisions
Records Requested
a) any separation agreement or other agreement between the Board and Ms Brazelton that relate to her taking paidleave
b) the resolutions that in accordance with NJSA 104-13 authorized the closed sessions held by the Board on July 282010 and August 26 2010 If the resolutions dont exist in any form other than being spread out in full in the minutesplease provide me with only the relevant pages from the minutes
c) the minutes of the Boards July 28 2010 and August 26 2010 closed sessions redacted as narrowly as possible if atall
d) the minutes of the three (3) most recent closed meetings of the Board for which minutes are publicly available inwhole or in part
e) the resolutions passed in accordance with NJSA 104-13 that authorized the three closed sessions for whichminutes are disclosed in accordance with d) above
f) the resolutions passed in accordance with NJSA 104-13 that authorized the three most recently held closedsessions held by the Board If the resolutions dont exist in any form other than being spread out in full in the minutesplease provide me with only the relevant pages from the minutes
g) all invoices for legal services submitted to the Board by any lawyer or firm covering legal services performed duringJuly and August 2010
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 1 of 77
2
Thank you
John Paff
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 2 of 77
Archived Thursday June 02 2011 80817 PMFrom Philip SternSent Thursday April 21 2011 95944 PMTo paffpoboxcomSubject OPRA RequestImportance NormalAttachments Response to Mr Paff Requestpdf
___________________________________
Hello Mr Paff Please be advised that we are the attorneys for the Runnemede SchoolDistrict Attached to this email is the Districtrsquos response to your OPRA request Do nothesitate to contact me if you have any questions or concerns regarding the attached Bestwishes for a happy holiday All the best Phil Stern
Philip E Stern
Adams Stern Gutierrez amp Lattiboudere LLC
The Legal Center
1037 Raymond Blvd Suite 710
Newark New Jersey 07102
(973) 735-2742 (office telephone)
(201) 914-2415 (cellular telephone)
(973) 735-2743 (office telefax)
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 3 of 77
Page 6
Project to complain about a) the lack of detail of its nonpublic meeting resolutions and b)
the lack of comprehensibility of its nonpublic meeting minutes Plaintiff specifically
informed the Board that it was Plaintiffrsquos intent to sue for declaratory and injunctive relief
in accordance with NJSA 104-16 unless Plaintiff receive assurances from the Board--
within a few days after its May 10 2011 meeting--that it will work in good faith to
improve the amount of information in both its closed session resolutions and minutes
(Emphasis in original) Plaintiffrsquos May 7 2011 letter to the Board with attachments is
attached to this Complaint as Exhibit Pages 35 through 48
19 On May 9 2011 Plaintiff received an e-mail from the Superintendent Ward
advising Plaintiff that Plaintiffrsquos letter could not be discussed at the May 10 2011 meeting
but would be addressed at the following meeting which would probably be held on May 25
2011 Ms Wards May 9 2011 e-mail is attached as Exhibit Pages 51 through 52
20 In addition to writing to the Board on May 7 2011 Plaintiff also submitted
another records request that asked for new copies of certain nonpublic meeting minutes
redacted as narrowly as possible if at all In the same request Plaintiff asked that the
specific legal basis for each redaction be explained in a manner consistent with law My
May 7 2011 records request is attached to this Complaint as Exhibit Pages 49 through 50
21 On May 20 2011 Board Attorney Stern responded to Plaintiffrsquos May 7 2011
request by providing Plaintiff with a) a one-page e-mail b) a one-page document entitled
Documents Exempt from OPRA Request of John Paff followed by twenty-three (23) pages
of responsive documents The response is attached to this Complaint as Exhibit Pages 53
through 77
Page 7
22 As of the date of this Complaint the Board has not responded to Plaintiffrsquos
May 7 2011 letter
FIRST COUNT
(OPEN PUBLIC RECORDS VIOLATION)
23 Defendant Custodian violated NJSA 471A-5(g) by not providing Plaintiff
with a sufficient specific basis for the redactions applied to the Boards nonpublic meeting
minutes
24 Defendant Custodian has not met its burden of proving that the redactions
applied to the Boards nonpublic meeting minutes are lawful
WHEREFORE Plaintiff demands
A A declaration that the reasons Defendant Custodian provided for the
redactions are insufficient
B An order compelling Defendant Custodian to provide a proper privilege log to
be filed with the Court and served upon Plaintiff
C That the redacted nonpublic minutes furnished to Plaintiff be examined by the
Court in camera
D That after an in camera inspection either unredacted or more narrowly
redacted versions of the minutes with the redactions fully and properly explained be
provided to me
E Costs of this action and a reasonable attorney fee
F Any other relief that the Court deems appropriate
Page 8
SECOND COUNT
(COMMON LAW RIGHT OF ACCESS)
25 Plaintiff (and the publics) interest in seeing unredacted versions of the
minutes that Defendant Custodian provided Plaintiff with exceeds the Boards
governmental and Brazletons personal interests in those minutes remaining redacted
WHEREFORE Plaintiff demands
G That the redacted nonpublic minutes furnished to Plaintiff be examined by the
Court in camera
H That after an in camera inspection either unredacted or more narrowly
redacted versions of the minutes with the redactions fully and properly explained be
provided to me
I Costs of this action and a reasonable attorney fee
J Any other relief that the Court deems appropriate
THIRD COUNT
(OPEN PUBLIC MEETINGS ACT)
26 The form of resolution that Defendant Board is using to go into nonpublic
session is too vague and does not comply with NJSA 104-13
27 The minutes of the Boards nonpublic sessions are not reasonably
comprehensible and therefore violate NJSA 104-14
WHEREFORE Plaintiff demands
Page 9
K That the Board be compelled to prepare new minutes of the nonpublic
meetings it held on March 31 2010 April 22 2010 July 28 2010 (two sessions) August 26
2010 and September 22 2010 that will record what occurred at those meetings in a
reasonably comprehensible matter or in the alternative that the Board be required to
disclose other contemporaneous records that will reveal the exact nature of the personnel
matters discussed during those nonpublic session particularly the exact nature of the
reasons why the Board entered into the Settlement AgreementRelease with Brazelton
L That the Board submit these newly prepared minutes to the Court for an in
camera review where they will be redacted only as necessary and disclosed to me
M That Defendant Board be enjoined going forward from excluding the public
from its meetings unless it first adopts a resolution in accordance with NJSA 104-13
that contains a level of detail to be prescribed by the Court
N That Defendant Board be enjoined going forward from recording minutes of
its nonpublic sessions that do not contain a level of detail to fixed by the Court
O The costs of this action
P Any other and further relief that the Court deems just
DESIGNATION OF TRIAL COUNSEL
Plaintiff hereby designates Walter M Luers as trial counsel
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO R 138-7(B)
I certify that confidential personal identifiers have been redacted from
documents now submitted to the Court and will be redacted from all documents submitted
in the future
1
From John Paff [paffpoboxcom]Sent Thursday April 07 2011 1011 PMTo vcarmodyrunnemedeschoolsorgSubject OPRA request
Ms Caromody
Please accept this e-mail as my request for government records pursuant to the Open Public Records Act (OPRA) and thecommon law right of access
Background
My understanding is that former Business Administrator Kelly Brazelton entered into a separation agreement with theBoard in or about August of 2010 that calls for her to receive her full salary until April 2011 As one blogger described inhis coverage of the August 26 2010 Board meeting there are rumors circulating as to why Brazelton went on paid leaveand why the Board agreed to pay her for going on leave Seehttpdansviewrunnemedewordpresscomcategorypolice
It seems to me that the public has a strong interest in learning the answers to these questions Accordingly my goal isto research this issue and make public my findings
As an additional issue I suspect that the Board may not be strictly adhering to the parts of the Open Public Meetings Actthat cover the resolutions that need to be passed before going into closed session and the need to make reasonablycomprehensible minutes of its closed sessions promptly available to the public to the extent that they are able to bedisclosed Accordingly I also wish to audit the Board on its compliance with these provisions
Records Requested
a) any separation agreement or other agreement between the Board and Ms Brazelton that relate to her taking paidleave
b) the resolutions that in accordance with NJSA 104-13 authorized the closed sessions held by the Board on July 282010 and August 26 2010 If the resolutions dont exist in any form other than being spread out in full in the minutesplease provide me with only the relevant pages from the minutes
c) the minutes of the Boards July 28 2010 and August 26 2010 closed sessions redacted as narrowly as possible if atall
d) the minutes of the three (3) most recent closed meetings of the Board for which minutes are publicly available inwhole or in part
e) the resolutions passed in accordance with NJSA 104-13 that authorized the three closed sessions for whichminutes are disclosed in accordance with d) above
f) the resolutions passed in accordance with NJSA 104-13 that authorized the three most recently held closedsessions held by the Board If the resolutions dont exist in any form other than being spread out in full in the minutesplease provide me with only the relevant pages from the minutes
g) all invoices for legal services submitted to the Board by any lawyer or firm covering legal services performed duringJuly and August 2010
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 1 of 77
2
Thank you
John Paff
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 2 of 77
Archived Thursday June 02 2011 80817 PMFrom Philip SternSent Thursday April 21 2011 95944 PMTo paffpoboxcomSubject OPRA RequestImportance NormalAttachments Response to Mr Paff Requestpdf
___________________________________
Hello Mr Paff Please be advised that we are the attorneys for the Runnemede SchoolDistrict Attached to this email is the Districtrsquos response to your OPRA request Do nothesitate to contact me if you have any questions or concerns regarding the attached Bestwishes for a happy holiday All the best Phil Stern
Philip E Stern
Adams Stern Gutierrez amp Lattiboudere LLC
The Legal Center
1037 Raymond Blvd Suite 710
Newark New Jersey 07102
(973) 735-2742 (office telephone)
(201) 914-2415 (cellular telephone)
(973) 735-2743 (office telefax)
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 3 of 77
Page 7
22 As of the date of this Complaint the Board has not responded to Plaintiffrsquos
May 7 2011 letter
FIRST COUNT
(OPEN PUBLIC RECORDS VIOLATION)
23 Defendant Custodian violated NJSA 471A-5(g) by not providing Plaintiff
with a sufficient specific basis for the redactions applied to the Boards nonpublic meeting
minutes
24 Defendant Custodian has not met its burden of proving that the redactions
applied to the Boards nonpublic meeting minutes are lawful
WHEREFORE Plaintiff demands
A A declaration that the reasons Defendant Custodian provided for the
redactions are insufficient
B An order compelling Defendant Custodian to provide a proper privilege log to
be filed with the Court and served upon Plaintiff
C That the redacted nonpublic minutes furnished to Plaintiff be examined by the
Court in camera
D That after an in camera inspection either unredacted or more narrowly
redacted versions of the minutes with the redactions fully and properly explained be
provided to me
E Costs of this action and a reasonable attorney fee
F Any other relief that the Court deems appropriate
Page 8
SECOND COUNT
(COMMON LAW RIGHT OF ACCESS)
25 Plaintiff (and the publics) interest in seeing unredacted versions of the
minutes that Defendant Custodian provided Plaintiff with exceeds the Boards
governmental and Brazletons personal interests in those minutes remaining redacted
WHEREFORE Plaintiff demands
G That the redacted nonpublic minutes furnished to Plaintiff be examined by the
Court in camera
H That after an in camera inspection either unredacted or more narrowly
redacted versions of the minutes with the redactions fully and properly explained be
provided to me
I Costs of this action and a reasonable attorney fee
J Any other relief that the Court deems appropriate
THIRD COUNT
(OPEN PUBLIC MEETINGS ACT)
26 The form of resolution that Defendant Board is using to go into nonpublic
session is too vague and does not comply with NJSA 104-13
27 The minutes of the Boards nonpublic sessions are not reasonably
comprehensible and therefore violate NJSA 104-14
WHEREFORE Plaintiff demands
Page 9
K That the Board be compelled to prepare new minutes of the nonpublic
meetings it held on March 31 2010 April 22 2010 July 28 2010 (two sessions) August 26
2010 and September 22 2010 that will record what occurred at those meetings in a
reasonably comprehensible matter or in the alternative that the Board be required to
disclose other contemporaneous records that will reveal the exact nature of the personnel
matters discussed during those nonpublic session particularly the exact nature of the
reasons why the Board entered into the Settlement AgreementRelease with Brazelton
L That the Board submit these newly prepared minutes to the Court for an in
camera review where they will be redacted only as necessary and disclosed to me
M That Defendant Board be enjoined going forward from excluding the public
from its meetings unless it first adopts a resolution in accordance with NJSA 104-13
that contains a level of detail to be prescribed by the Court
N That Defendant Board be enjoined going forward from recording minutes of
its nonpublic sessions that do not contain a level of detail to fixed by the Court
O The costs of this action
P Any other and further relief that the Court deems just
DESIGNATION OF TRIAL COUNSEL
Plaintiff hereby designates Walter M Luers as trial counsel
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO R 138-7(B)
I certify that confidential personal identifiers have been redacted from
documents now submitted to the Court and will be redacted from all documents submitted
in the future
1
From John Paff [paffpoboxcom]Sent Thursday April 07 2011 1011 PMTo vcarmodyrunnemedeschoolsorgSubject OPRA request
Ms Caromody
Please accept this e-mail as my request for government records pursuant to the Open Public Records Act (OPRA) and thecommon law right of access
Background
My understanding is that former Business Administrator Kelly Brazelton entered into a separation agreement with theBoard in or about August of 2010 that calls for her to receive her full salary until April 2011 As one blogger described inhis coverage of the August 26 2010 Board meeting there are rumors circulating as to why Brazelton went on paid leaveand why the Board agreed to pay her for going on leave Seehttpdansviewrunnemedewordpresscomcategorypolice
It seems to me that the public has a strong interest in learning the answers to these questions Accordingly my goal isto research this issue and make public my findings
As an additional issue I suspect that the Board may not be strictly adhering to the parts of the Open Public Meetings Actthat cover the resolutions that need to be passed before going into closed session and the need to make reasonablycomprehensible minutes of its closed sessions promptly available to the public to the extent that they are able to bedisclosed Accordingly I also wish to audit the Board on its compliance with these provisions
Records Requested
a) any separation agreement or other agreement between the Board and Ms Brazelton that relate to her taking paidleave
b) the resolutions that in accordance with NJSA 104-13 authorized the closed sessions held by the Board on July 282010 and August 26 2010 If the resolutions dont exist in any form other than being spread out in full in the minutesplease provide me with only the relevant pages from the minutes
c) the minutes of the Boards July 28 2010 and August 26 2010 closed sessions redacted as narrowly as possible if atall
d) the minutes of the three (3) most recent closed meetings of the Board for which minutes are publicly available inwhole or in part
e) the resolutions passed in accordance with NJSA 104-13 that authorized the three closed sessions for whichminutes are disclosed in accordance with d) above
f) the resolutions passed in accordance with NJSA 104-13 that authorized the three most recently held closedsessions held by the Board If the resolutions dont exist in any form other than being spread out in full in the minutesplease provide me with only the relevant pages from the minutes
g) all invoices for legal services submitted to the Board by any lawyer or firm covering legal services performed duringJuly and August 2010
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 1 of 77
2
Thank you
John Paff
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 2 of 77
Archived Thursday June 02 2011 80817 PMFrom Philip SternSent Thursday April 21 2011 95944 PMTo paffpoboxcomSubject OPRA RequestImportance NormalAttachments Response to Mr Paff Requestpdf
___________________________________
Hello Mr Paff Please be advised that we are the attorneys for the Runnemede SchoolDistrict Attached to this email is the Districtrsquos response to your OPRA request Do nothesitate to contact me if you have any questions or concerns regarding the attached Bestwishes for a happy holiday All the best Phil Stern
Philip E Stern
Adams Stern Gutierrez amp Lattiboudere LLC
The Legal Center
1037 Raymond Blvd Suite 710
Newark New Jersey 07102
(973) 735-2742 (office telephone)
(201) 914-2415 (cellular telephone)
(973) 735-2743 (office telefax)
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 3 of 77
Page 8
SECOND COUNT
(COMMON LAW RIGHT OF ACCESS)
25 Plaintiff (and the publics) interest in seeing unredacted versions of the
minutes that Defendant Custodian provided Plaintiff with exceeds the Boards
governmental and Brazletons personal interests in those minutes remaining redacted
WHEREFORE Plaintiff demands
G That the redacted nonpublic minutes furnished to Plaintiff be examined by the
Court in camera
H That after an in camera inspection either unredacted or more narrowly
redacted versions of the minutes with the redactions fully and properly explained be
provided to me
I Costs of this action and a reasonable attorney fee
J Any other relief that the Court deems appropriate
THIRD COUNT
(OPEN PUBLIC MEETINGS ACT)
26 The form of resolution that Defendant Board is using to go into nonpublic
session is too vague and does not comply with NJSA 104-13
27 The minutes of the Boards nonpublic sessions are not reasonably
comprehensible and therefore violate NJSA 104-14
WHEREFORE Plaintiff demands
Page 9
K That the Board be compelled to prepare new minutes of the nonpublic
meetings it held on March 31 2010 April 22 2010 July 28 2010 (two sessions) August 26
2010 and September 22 2010 that will record what occurred at those meetings in a
reasonably comprehensible matter or in the alternative that the Board be required to
disclose other contemporaneous records that will reveal the exact nature of the personnel
matters discussed during those nonpublic session particularly the exact nature of the
reasons why the Board entered into the Settlement AgreementRelease with Brazelton
L That the Board submit these newly prepared minutes to the Court for an in
camera review where they will be redacted only as necessary and disclosed to me
M That Defendant Board be enjoined going forward from excluding the public
from its meetings unless it first adopts a resolution in accordance with NJSA 104-13
that contains a level of detail to be prescribed by the Court
N That Defendant Board be enjoined going forward from recording minutes of
its nonpublic sessions that do not contain a level of detail to fixed by the Court
O The costs of this action
P Any other and further relief that the Court deems just
DESIGNATION OF TRIAL COUNSEL
Plaintiff hereby designates Walter M Luers as trial counsel
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO R 138-7(B)
I certify that confidential personal identifiers have been redacted from
documents now submitted to the Court and will be redacted from all documents submitted
in the future
1
From John Paff [paffpoboxcom]Sent Thursday April 07 2011 1011 PMTo vcarmodyrunnemedeschoolsorgSubject OPRA request
Ms Caromody
Please accept this e-mail as my request for government records pursuant to the Open Public Records Act (OPRA) and thecommon law right of access
Background
My understanding is that former Business Administrator Kelly Brazelton entered into a separation agreement with theBoard in or about August of 2010 that calls for her to receive her full salary until April 2011 As one blogger described inhis coverage of the August 26 2010 Board meeting there are rumors circulating as to why Brazelton went on paid leaveand why the Board agreed to pay her for going on leave Seehttpdansviewrunnemedewordpresscomcategorypolice
It seems to me that the public has a strong interest in learning the answers to these questions Accordingly my goal isto research this issue and make public my findings
As an additional issue I suspect that the Board may not be strictly adhering to the parts of the Open Public Meetings Actthat cover the resolutions that need to be passed before going into closed session and the need to make reasonablycomprehensible minutes of its closed sessions promptly available to the public to the extent that they are able to bedisclosed Accordingly I also wish to audit the Board on its compliance with these provisions
Records Requested
a) any separation agreement or other agreement between the Board and Ms Brazelton that relate to her taking paidleave
b) the resolutions that in accordance with NJSA 104-13 authorized the closed sessions held by the Board on July 282010 and August 26 2010 If the resolutions dont exist in any form other than being spread out in full in the minutesplease provide me with only the relevant pages from the minutes
c) the minutes of the Boards July 28 2010 and August 26 2010 closed sessions redacted as narrowly as possible if atall
d) the minutes of the three (3) most recent closed meetings of the Board for which minutes are publicly available inwhole or in part
e) the resolutions passed in accordance with NJSA 104-13 that authorized the three closed sessions for whichminutes are disclosed in accordance with d) above
f) the resolutions passed in accordance with NJSA 104-13 that authorized the three most recently held closedsessions held by the Board If the resolutions dont exist in any form other than being spread out in full in the minutesplease provide me with only the relevant pages from the minutes
g) all invoices for legal services submitted to the Board by any lawyer or firm covering legal services performed duringJuly and August 2010
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 1 of 77
2
Thank you
John Paff
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 2 of 77
Archived Thursday June 02 2011 80817 PMFrom Philip SternSent Thursday April 21 2011 95944 PMTo paffpoboxcomSubject OPRA RequestImportance NormalAttachments Response to Mr Paff Requestpdf
___________________________________
Hello Mr Paff Please be advised that we are the attorneys for the Runnemede SchoolDistrict Attached to this email is the Districtrsquos response to your OPRA request Do nothesitate to contact me if you have any questions or concerns regarding the attached Bestwishes for a happy holiday All the best Phil Stern
Philip E Stern
Adams Stern Gutierrez amp Lattiboudere LLC
The Legal Center
1037 Raymond Blvd Suite 710
Newark New Jersey 07102
(973) 735-2742 (office telephone)
(201) 914-2415 (cellular telephone)
(973) 735-2743 (office telefax)
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 3 of 77
Page 9
K That the Board be compelled to prepare new minutes of the nonpublic
meetings it held on March 31 2010 April 22 2010 July 28 2010 (two sessions) August 26
2010 and September 22 2010 that will record what occurred at those meetings in a
reasonably comprehensible matter or in the alternative that the Board be required to
disclose other contemporaneous records that will reveal the exact nature of the personnel
matters discussed during those nonpublic session particularly the exact nature of the
reasons why the Board entered into the Settlement AgreementRelease with Brazelton
L That the Board submit these newly prepared minutes to the Court for an in
camera review where they will be redacted only as necessary and disclosed to me
M That Defendant Board be enjoined going forward from excluding the public
from its meetings unless it first adopts a resolution in accordance with NJSA 104-13
that contains a level of detail to be prescribed by the Court
N That Defendant Board be enjoined going forward from recording minutes of
its nonpublic sessions that do not contain a level of detail to fixed by the Court
O The costs of this action
P Any other and further relief that the Court deems just
DESIGNATION OF TRIAL COUNSEL
Plaintiff hereby designates Walter M Luers as trial counsel
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO R 138-7(B)
I certify that confidential personal identifiers have been redacted from
documents now submitted to the Court and will be redacted from all documents submitted
in the future
1
From John Paff [paffpoboxcom]Sent Thursday April 07 2011 1011 PMTo vcarmodyrunnemedeschoolsorgSubject OPRA request
Ms Caromody
Please accept this e-mail as my request for government records pursuant to the Open Public Records Act (OPRA) and thecommon law right of access
Background
My understanding is that former Business Administrator Kelly Brazelton entered into a separation agreement with theBoard in or about August of 2010 that calls for her to receive her full salary until April 2011 As one blogger described inhis coverage of the August 26 2010 Board meeting there are rumors circulating as to why Brazelton went on paid leaveand why the Board agreed to pay her for going on leave Seehttpdansviewrunnemedewordpresscomcategorypolice
It seems to me that the public has a strong interest in learning the answers to these questions Accordingly my goal isto research this issue and make public my findings
As an additional issue I suspect that the Board may not be strictly adhering to the parts of the Open Public Meetings Actthat cover the resolutions that need to be passed before going into closed session and the need to make reasonablycomprehensible minutes of its closed sessions promptly available to the public to the extent that they are able to bedisclosed Accordingly I also wish to audit the Board on its compliance with these provisions
Records Requested
a) any separation agreement or other agreement between the Board and Ms Brazelton that relate to her taking paidleave
b) the resolutions that in accordance with NJSA 104-13 authorized the closed sessions held by the Board on July 282010 and August 26 2010 If the resolutions dont exist in any form other than being spread out in full in the minutesplease provide me with only the relevant pages from the minutes
c) the minutes of the Boards July 28 2010 and August 26 2010 closed sessions redacted as narrowly as possible if atall
d) the minutes of the three (3) most recent closed meetings of the Board for which minutes are publicly available inwhole or in part
e) the resolutions passed in accordance with NJSA 104-13 that authorized the three closed sessions for whichminutes are disclosed in accordance with d) above
f) the resolutions passed in accordance with NJSA 104-13 that authorized the three most recently held closedsessions held by the Board If the resolutions dont exist in any form other than being spread out in full in the minutesplease provide me with only the relevant pages from the minutes
g) all invoices for legal services submitted to the Board by any lawyer or firm covering legal services performed duringJuly and August 2010
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 1 of 77
2
Thank you
John Paff
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 2 of 77
Archived Thursday June 02 2011 80817 PMFrom Philip SternSent Thursday April 21 2011 95944 PMTo paffpoboxcomSubject OPRA RequestImportance NormalAttachments Response to Mr Paff Requestpdf
___________________________________
Hello Mr Paff Please be advised that we are the attorneys for the Runnemede SchoolDistrict Attached to this email is the Districtrsquos response to your OPRA request Do nothesitate to contact me if you have any questions or concerns regarding the attached Bestwishes for a happy holiday All the best Phil Stern
Philip E Stern
Adams Stern Gutierrez amp Lattiboudere LLC
The Legal Center
1037 Raymond Blvd Suite 710
Newark New Jersey 07102
(973) 735-2742 (office telephone)
(201) 914-2415 (cellular telephone)
(973) 735-2743 (office telefax)
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 3 of 77
1
From John Paff [paffpoboxcom]Sent Thursday April 07 2011 1011 PMTo vcarmodyrunnemedeschoolsorgSubject OPRA request
Ms Caromody
Please accept this e-mail as my request for government records pursuant to the Open Public Records Act (OPRA) and thecommon law right of access
Background
My understanding is that former Business Administrator Kelly Brazelton entered into a separation agreement with theBoard in or about August of 2010 that calls for her to receive her full salary until April 2011 As one blogger described inhis coverage of the August 26 2010 Board meeting there are rumors circulating as to why Brazelton went on paid leaveand why the Board agreed to pay her for going on leave Seehttpdansviewrunnemedewordpresscomcategorypolice
It seems to me that the public has a strong interest in learning the answers to these questions Accordingly my goal isto research this issue and make public my findings
As an additional issue I suspect that the Board may not be strictly adhering to the parts of the Open Public Meetings Actthat cover the resolutions that need to be passed before going into closed session and the need to make reasonablycomprehensible minutes of its closed sessions promptly available to the public to the extent that they are able to bedisclosed Accordingly I also wish to audit the Board on its compliance with these provisions
Records Requested
a) any separation agreement or other agreement between the Board and Ms Brazelton that relate to her taking paidleave
b) the resolutions that in accordance with NJSA 104-13 authorized the closed sessions held by the Board on July 282010 and August 26 2010 If the resolutions dont exist in any form other than being spread out in full in the minutesplease provide me with only the relevant pages from the minutes
c) the minutes of the Boards July 28 2010 and August 26 2010 closed sessions redacted as narrowly as possible if atall
d) the minutes of the three (3) most recent closed meetings of the Board for which minutes are publicly available inwhole or in part
e) the resolutions passed in accordance with NJSA 104-13 that authorized the three closed sessions for whichminutes are disclosed in accordance with d) above
f) the resolutions passed in accordance with NJSA 104-13 that authorized the three most recently held closedsessions held by the Board If the resolutions dont exist in any form other than being spread out in full in the minutesplease provide me with only the relevant pages from the minutes
g) all invoices for legal services submitted to the Board by any lawyer or firm covering legal services performed duringJuly and August 2010
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 1 of 77
2
Thank you
John Paff
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 2 of 77
Archived Thursday June 02 2011 80817 PMFrom Philip SternSent Thursday April 21 2011 95944 PMTo paffpoboxcomSubject OPRA RequestImportance NormalAttachments Response to Mr Paff Requestpdf
___________________________________
Hello Mr Paff Please be advised that we are the attorneys for the Runnemede SchoolDistrict Attached to this email is the Districtrsquos response to your OPRA request Do nothesitate to contact me if you have any questions or concerns regarding the attached Bestwishes for a happy holiday All the best Phil Stern
Philip E Stern
Adams Stern Gutierrez amp Lattiboudere LLC
The Legal Center
1037 Raymond Blvd Suite 710
Newark New Jersey 07102
(973) 735-2742 (office telephone)
(201) 914-2415 (cellular telephone)
(973) 735-2743 (office telefax)
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 3 of 77
2
Thank you
John Paff
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 2 of 77
Archived Thursday June 02 2011 80817 PMFrom Philip SternSent Thursday April 21 2011 95944 PMTo paffpoboxcomSubject OPRA RequestImportance NormalAttachments Response to Mr Paff Requestpdf
___________________________________
Hello Mr Paff Please be advised that we are the attorneys for the Runnemede SchoolDistrict Attached to this email is the Districtrsquos response to your OPRA request Do nothesitate to contact me if you have any questions or concerns regarding the attached Bestwishes for a happy holiday All the best Phil Stern
Philip E Stern
Adams Stern Gutierrez amp Lattiboudere LLC
The Legal Center
1037 Raymond Blvd Suite 710
Newark New Jersey 07102
(973) 735-2742 (office telephone)
(201) 914-2415 (cellular telephone)
(973) 735-2743 (office telefax)
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 3 of 77
Archived Thursday June 02 2011 80817 PMFrom Philip SternSent Thursday April 21 2011 95944 PMTo paffpoboxcomSubject OPRA RequestImportance NormalAttachments Response to Mr Paff Requestpdf
___________________________________
Hello Mr Paff Please be advised that we are the attorneys for the Runnemede SchoolDistrict Attached to this email is the Districtrsquos response to your OPRA request Do nothesitate to contact me if you have any questions or concerns regarding the attached Bestwishes for a happy holiday All the best Phil Stern
Philip E Stern
Adams Stern Gutierrez amp Lattiboudere LLC
The Legal Center
1037 Raymond Blvd Suite 710
Newark New Jersey 07102
(973) 735-2742 (office telephone)
(201) 914-2415 (cellular telephone)
(973) 735-2743 (office telefax)
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 3 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 4 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 5 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 6 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 7 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 8 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 9 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 10 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 11 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 12 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 13 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 14 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 15 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 16 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 17 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 18 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 19 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 20 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 21 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 22 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 23 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 24 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 25 of 77
Idled officials payout riles Runnemede
By BARBARA S ROTHSCHILD bull Courier-Post Staff bull March 5 2011
RUNNEMEDE mdash Although the school district is paying Business Administrator Kelly PetersBrazelton her full salary to stay home while paying for an interim employee RunnemedeSuperintendent Nancy Ward said it could have cost more not to have a separationagreement
New Jersey is a very litigious state she said In order to avoid litigation which neveris a good thing a separation agreement gives you a certain outcome
Brazelton a Deptford resident and the former business administrator for the SomerdalePublic School District began working for Runnemede schools in August 2008 Her mostrecent contract for July 1 2010 through June 30 is for $99465 plus benefits
But the relationship soured and the district would not comment on specifics citingconfidentiality
A letter from staff members written to Ward and the school board in July 2010 gaveexamples of a hostile work environment that they said was created by the businessadministrator
Brazelton could not be reached Her attorney Joseph Betley of Mount Laurel said hisclient signed the separation agreement in good faith
There was a disagreement between the board and Kelly he said It was resolved andboth sides decided to move on
She disputes any and all allegations regarding a hostile work environment It wassimply Kelly doing her job
The separation agreement and release dated Oct 20 stipulates Brazelton be placed ona paid leave of absence from Sept 23 to April 15 at which time she would irrevocablyresign
School board President Colleen Kurth said it was much easier to go with a separationagreement than pay more legal fees
She compared paying Brazelton to paying a teacher out sick while a substitute fills in
The job just has to go on Kurth said
Interim Business Administrator Valerie Carmody who retired from the same post in EastGreenwich last year was hired Dec 1 at $60 per hour 24 hours maximum per weekHer contract ends June 30
New Jersey School Boards Association spokesman Mike Yaple said such separationagreements are infrequent
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 26 of 77
No school board willingly enters into an agreement like this he insisted But eventhough its not a popular decision its the lesser of two evils
Residents unhappy about the districts handling of the situation include Dan Conard ajournalism student at Rowan University Conard writes a blog where he discusses schooldistrict and municipal matters To comment on this topic he filed Open Public RecordsAct (OPRA) document requests
I just wanted to get it out there so people know what is going on Conard said
Ward said she has no quarrel with the student but believes Brazeltons case is anunusual circumstance
It (the separation agreement) was the most responsible thing the district could havedone she insisted Was it a bitter pill to swallow It took the board (a while) beforethey felt it was something they could do but it makes the most sense
Ward said the part-time arrangement with Carmody is working out well and that as thedistrict improves efficiency it is unlikely another full-time business administrator will behired particularly when Executive County Superintendent Peggy Nicolosi has advisedagainst it
Among the options being considered are another part-time business administrator or ashared-service agreement with another district
Ward said she would have preferred the money being expended in this case be spent oneducational programs and teachers particularly this year
Although voters passed Runnemedes 2010-11 budget while many others were defeatedlast April the district of 853 students in K-8 lost six staffers and streamlined its gifted-and-talented program after state aid was cut
Ward also defended the decision to keep a maintenance techniciansupervisor positioncreated in 2008 noting it has saved at least $145000 each year
Mark Speck of Voorhees earns $50000 in the post Through June 2010 it was filled byDoug McGarry a former building and grounds supervisor in the Somerdale district Heearned $60000 in Runnemede but had more experience than Speck Ward said
Before Brazelton arrived in Runnemede the business administrator also served asmaintenance supervisor Ward said that actually cost the district more because it had topay outside maintenance workers sometimes for faulty work
Many things had been done to the facilities that were not to the boards satisfactionshe said That first year with our own maintenance person we saved $145000 becausewe hired a person who fixed things
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 27 of 77
Speck works with vendors going over bids and quotes and also does minor repairs thatno longer have to be paid for piecemeal Ward said the position is staying in the 2011-2012 budget adopted preliminarily on Wednesday
Hes the guy whos here at 4 am making sure weve got snow plows when we needthem Ward said Hes dirty and sweaty -- and hes excellent
Ward said the budget sent to the county includes a $78 annual tax increase for theowner of a home assessed at the $97800 borough average but does not cut staff orprograms
Kurth hopes to tweak the budget and lower the tax hike before it is introduced to thepublic on March 23 But she agreed the maintenance supervisor will stay
That was an investment on the part of the school district Kurth said
Reach Barbara S Rothschild at (856) 486-2416 or barothschildcamdengannettcom
--Comments
User Imageamonkeycoulddoit wroteThe mayor cant hear you because she doesnt even know how to turn on a computerNot that it was a requirement that the mayor should know how to use one I think theonly requirement is that they have a pulse And she does but barely372011 12406 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imageamonkeycoulddoit wroteTo sickofpolsnj it does seem that snoopysam has some inside information And whenyou say hows that mayors race looking I hope that you dont mean that someone fromthe disfunctional school board is going to run for mayor or council or some other electedposition considering the mess that they made on the school board372011 11832 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imageamonkeycoulddoit wroteIf the school board president had listened to staff when the hostil work enviroment issuestarted then she might not be in this pickle She should have spent the money on thelegal fees because if everything is true about the hostile enviroment then they wouldhave won the lawsuit hands down and not had to pay out anything and gotten their legalfees back Another example of elected officials not capable of doing the job they are inLets hope that some people come out of the woodwork to run for school board peoplewho care about the kids and the taxpayers372011 11309 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imageamonkeycoulddoit wrote
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 28 of 77
The school boad is not as inept as the mayor and council You dont have to be a collegegraduate or or even be able to read or write to get an elected position in runnemedeThe 2 new council members got elected because the are involved in the union andeveryone who supports the union came out to vote And the new mayor must have a lotof friends But now after the few months they have been in office it is clear to see thatthey are not able to handle the job Mayor14 is right that the people of Runnemedevoted because they thought they would get something in return for their vote but itlooks like they were wrong In the upcoming elections for school board and council votefor the person who will do the best job whether you like them or not Dont just vote forsomeone because you are told to372011 10214 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagethemayor14 wrotei am so glad this article was written and it clearly points out how inept the runnemedeboard of education actually is the board of education is not elected based on businessand education talent the elections are nothing more than a popularity contest i dontknow how other towns operate but runnemede boro is a total joke when it come toelections be it school board or general elections i wish everyone would get their headsout of their A$$ and truly investigate the school board canidates that are running forelection VOTE WITH YOUR HEAD NOT WITH YOUR HEART362011 91350 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagesavetheschools wroteSeveral people are running for the board for four open seats I signed a petition todayfor a new woman running Members are not paid If you live in Runnemede shopstewardyou have until Tuesday to get a petition submitted I asked and found out there is only 5people on average at the BOE meetings every month in Runnemede I hope more peoplestart to go I plan on it myself And we all need to go every month not just when weread negative press about our schools That is the only way we would all stay informedand not rely on the young man submitting OPRA requests Our town has always beenabout the kids and it needs to get back that way362011 80936 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser ImageShopsteward wroteWhy did it take one young man sending in OPRA requests to bring all this to lightWhy are you relying upon him to get to the bottom of it You say The other members(except for the one who was just arrested and resigned) are good people and didnothing wrong to the district and that might be true except for the fact that theyallowed that incredible salary and benefits to be given out and even though all kinds ofrumors were flying around it took an outsider with OPRA requests to bring this ghastlypimple to a head Sounds more like none of them are doing their jobs and should be outof office and off the payroll They should all just resign They arent doing the job thatwas assigned to them362011 32559 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Image
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 29 of 77
Shopsteward wroteA crime was committed here It began with a violation of the Publics trust by the peoplewho allowed this contract to be signed in the first place What a jokeHow many moreof these jobs are hidden in the budgets of our Schools There needs to be a thouroughcleaning of all thses tyeps of employees everywhere At the State County Municipaland Scool board level and the appointed Authorities too Everyone screams about theUnions but whenever you hear of some great big abuse it turns out the person wasnteven in the UnionClean up this mess first Mr Christie before yougo after the little guys It will save us all a lot more money362011 101606 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser ImageShopsteward wroteI still dont get itHow is a part time24 hr a week job worth so much This is aprime example of the waste that is giving the public workers a bad nameThe onlyproblem is it isnt some Union personIts management and its the same all over This isjust the tip of the iceberg they scream about the Unions but the real waste is in jobs likethis oneNo way this job or the thousands of others like it should be paid so well99465 PLUS BENEFITS incrediblethere should be a lawandthe person gets a pension based on that bloated salarytooThere should be other people losing their jobs not for theseperation aggreement but for letting this evenhappen352011 101125 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagethesplits wroteI guess this is Runnemedes version of a shared service352011 73450 PM
User Imagethesplits wroteLooks like its the same old Runnemede and I thought we voted for change Mayor352011 73202 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagesavetheschools wroteFrom what I understand and I live in town the board went into this separationagreement because the BA would have had a potential lawsuit and it would have costthe school district and tax payers a ton of money Much more than they are spendingnow And yes it is one school board member who was apparently corrupt Just one Theyoung man who was mentioned in the article has been OPRA requesting items and willget to the bottom of this situation with the former BA and the certain board memberBut that is just one person The other members (except for the one who was justarrested and resigned) are good people and did nothing wrong to the district Thisformer BA and her friend who was hired as the maint supervisor have been a hot topicfor a few years Ask the employees they were awful and needed to go It is awful thatthis money was not spent on our children It was a trainwreck from the beginning and ifI recall correctly when the hiring took place only one of the members voted no and that
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 30 of 77
was the local high school teacher metioned in another post Runnemede schools arefantastic and maybe the new people running for election will get some answers andmake some changes And maybe the BOE member who was mentioned by employees asbeing the reason why there could be a possible lawsuit should just resign I understandadmin make good money but they also need to be accountable for their actions and ifthe BA made a hostile environment and was supported by one BOE member both shouldbe gonenot just the BA352011 33207 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagecookmom wroteWhere is Gov Christies veto power352011 30321 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagecookmom wroteThis all happened with a local police officer and a FOP member and local high schoolteacher and member of the NJEA on the board The Runnemede Board is looking alotlike the DRPA and was this group picked by the new Mayor352011 30042 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagesickofpolsnj wroteThe real truth is the Board of Education member and Brazelton and the unethicalsituation that THEY created The questionable contracts and underhanded deals There isa certain Board Member that hopes that this ends here well it doesnt There is not aTeacher or employee in Runnemede Schools that would defend Brazelton same goes forSomerdale And many are willing to bring out MANY of the things that Brazelton did todestroy the district The ENTIRE Runnemede School Community is thrilled that Brazeltonis gone Snoopysam is clearly one of two people Kelly or the Board Member shouldwe name names Hows that Mayors race looking352011 114254 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser ImageShopsteward wrote$99465 plus benefits How much does she pay for her share of those benefitsor are they free to her Her replacement only works 24 hours a week are we being toldthat she got that much money for a part time job What is the matter with theidiots that hired her to begin withNo one should get that kind of money for a part timeThat is an awful lot of money for that kind of job We should not be surprised at all Thiskind of thing is everywhere in Camden CountyIts the NORMAL way of doingbusiness352011 113922 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagelookfar111 wroteYep same old story hire someone for $98000 when 10 equally qualified people woulddo it for 60k with a 20 year top out at 75 k Then a sweetheart adios gift And the cherry
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 31 of 77
on top Another tax increase for the people God I hate what the democrat machinehave done to this once great state352011 111649 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser ImageSnoopysam wrotesickofpolsnj you must be on ot those employees that Brazelton held accountable forHER actions You are right there is so much more to this story and when the real truthscome out there will be some emplopyeesadministratorsboard members hanging theirheads in shame Talk about wasting taxpayer dollars take a look at some of the lazyincompetent employees that Brazelton had to deal withand their HUGE mistakes thathad to be corrected which cost the taxpayers thousands upon thousands of dollars352011 94250 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagesickofpolsnj wroteYou are exactly correct A teacher would never get a sweatheart deal like this I wonderwhich Board Member it was that was mentioned in that letter Did you read the blog thatthis all came out on it has way more details than this articlehttpdansviewrunnemedewordpresscom352011 92934 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagesickofpolsnj wroteOnly thing is Runnemede never had these issues Somerdale had the same EXACT issueswith Brazelton Administrators arent allowed to comment however talk to the teachersand employees off record they will tell you all about Kelly352011 92726 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagesickofpolsnj wroteThere is so much more to this story I hope the CP will run a follow up 1 Look into therealtionship and hiring surrounding Doug the maintenance supervisor 2 Check intoBrazeltons past employment Somerdale Schools 3 Brazelton is rumored to be hired atthe completion of the settlement in Deptford 4 Look into unethical practices between aBoard Member and Brazelton 5 And what about the other Board member that wasrecently charged with a serious crime352011 92315 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imageicallbullschit wroteOnce again the government tries to pin their mistakes on an individual when they screwup royally What the paper fails to report is the other side Maybe years and years ofmismanagement and patronage were uncovered and it became a hostile environmentwhen people got called on their actions and the same old routine was stopped Maybethe school board realized it would be cheaper to pay one than to pay many for theirmistakes Maybe the school board was willing to pay in order to keep their dirty littlesecrets covered up Maybe the resident should look deeper into the actions of the schoolboard and the rest of the administration Maybe I am wrong but it seems that the board
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 32 of 77
got called on some issues and now they are attacking one individual to cover theirtracks They seem to be acting like the GREAT WIZARD OF OZ Pay no attention to theidiots behind the curtain we are the all powerful and all knowing school board Pull backthe curtain people because there are people behind there that are faking their waythrough and going to wind up costing the district millions Just saying352011 85642 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagecookmom wroteSchool board President Colleen Kurth said it was much easier to go with a separationagreement than pay more legal fees She compared paying Brazelton to paying ateacher out sick while a substitute fills in The job just has to go on Kurth said I amconfused A teacher out SICK is NOT the same as a HOSTILE work enviorment How cana medical condition be compared to a person being accused of a hostile workenviorment A teacher would be REQUIRED to use their sick days~ since this is beingcompared to an illness ~was Brazelton REQUIRED to give up her sickvacation pay orwas that part of the dealWas she also paid for those days Wouldnt we all love to becollecting a salary from two towns As now she is being paid by Runnemde AND acurrent SCHOOL district where she is currently employed THIS is the waste in ourSchool districts352011 83552 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imageneocon wroteShe is part of the Protected Classes All you need to know is that she is better thanyou so just keep moveing along Nothing to see here352011 81912 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report Abuse
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 33 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 34 of 77
New Jersey Libertarian PartyOpen Government Advocacy Project
John Paff Chairman
PO Box 5424
Somerset NJ 08875-5424
Phone 732-873-1251 - Fax 908-325-0129
Email lpsmcpoboxcom
May 7 2011
Hon Colleen Kurth President and members of the
Runnemede Board of Education
505 W Third Ave
Runnemede NJ 08078 (via e-mail to vcarmodyrunnemedeschoolsorg )
Dear President Kurth and Board members
I write both individually and on behalf the New Jersey Libertarian Partys Open
Government Advocacy Project to comment on 1) the manner in which the Board of Education
goes into nonpublic (ie executive or closed) session and 2) the level of detail contained within
the Boardrsquos executive session minutes
Issue 1 Executive Session resolutions
As you are aware the Senator Byron M Baer Open Public Meetings Act requires public
bodies such as the Runnemede Board of Education to publicly pass a resolution before
excluding the public from a meeting The statute that requires the resolution states
NJSA 104-13mdashClosed meetings resolution to conduct
No public body shall exclude the public from any meeting to discuss any
matter described in subsection 7 b (104-12) until the public body shall
first adopt a resolution at a meeting to which the public shall be admitted
a Stating the general nature of the subject to be discussed and
b Stating as precisely as possible the time when and the circumstances
under which the discussion conducted in closed session of the public body
can be disclosed to the public
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 35 of 77
2
By way of a recent records request I received resolutions which purport to authorize
executive sessions intended to be held by the Board of Education on July 28 2010 (2 sessions)
August 20 2010 February 2 1011 February 23 2011 (2 sessions) and March 2 2011 Those
resolutions which are virtually identical to each other state
Executive Session to discuss student matters personnel contractual and
legal matters [time and a statement as to whether action will be
taken]
[identity of maker of motion etc]
Resolved that pursuant to Section 8 of the Public Meetings Act the public
shall be excluded from that portion of the meeting involving the discussion
of personnel legal and contractual matters Further resolved that
discussion of such subject matters discussed in Executive Session can be
disclosed to public upon official action if any at the conclusion of the
executive session or at a public session at some later date
I dont think that this form of resolution satisfies NJSA 104-13 because it gives the
public no real sense of what is being privately discussed1 To paraphrase the highest court of of
another state a body which only announces ldquolegal mattersrdquo or ldquopersonnel negotiationsrdquo for
going into executive session has said nothing It might has well have stated to the audience
ldquoLadies and gentlemen we are going into executive sessionrdquo and stopped there Hinds County
Board of Supervisors v Common Cause of Mississippi 551 So2d 107 114 (MS 1989)
Of course there can be no dispute that the Board of Education often has legitimate
reasons to meet in nonpublic session Among these reasons is the need to prevent the adverse
parties in litigation or contract negotiations from gaining an unfair advantage and to allow
members of the governing body to debate and deliberate personnel matters without public
scrutiny or participation But the need to discuss matters privately should not prevent the
public from being informed as precisely as possible of the topics that are being privately
discussed
For example suppose that Runnemede Board is being sued by a Mr Jones who was
injured after he slipped and fell on what he claims to be negligently maintained school
property Since the lawsuit is already a public record there is no public purpose served by
vaguely describing a private discussion of it as ldquostudent matters personnel contractual and
legal mattersrdquo Rather the resolution should at the very least describe the private discussion as
1 In January 2007 when I most recently litigated this issue Middlesex County Superior Court Judge Alexander P
Waugh issued a written decision in which he agreed with other court decisions that closed session resolutions
should contain as much information as is consistent with full public knowledge without doing any harm to the
public interest Judge Waughs decision and other case documents are on the Web at
httpogtfarchiveorgOGTFMonroeBOEWebreadypdf
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 36 of 77
3
ldquoDiscussion of slip and fall negligence suit Jones v Runnemede Board Docket No CAM-L-
012345-11rdquo This way the public has a very good sense of what the Boardrsquos private discussion is
about while the ability of the Board to develop its lawsuit strategy is not undermined
Using the same example suppose that Jonesrsquo attorney sent the Boardrsquos attorney an offer
to fully settle the lawsuit upon the Boardrsquos payment of $20000 While the Board would
obviously need to discuss how to respond to the offer in private lest Jones or his attorney
would be in the audience witnessing the discussion there is no reason why the public cannot be
informed in the NJSA 104-13 resolution that the Board will meet in private to discuss ldquoa
settlement offer received from the Plaintiff in the slip and fall negligence suit known as Jones v
Runnemede Board Docket No CAM-L-012345-11 in which the Plaintiff offers to settle the suit
in exchange for the Board paying him $20000rdquo While it may initially seem that this would
provide ldquotoo muchrdquo information to the public this concern disappears once it is realized that
the sole purpose of the exception2 that allows litigation matters to be discussed in private is to
keep the adverse party to the litigation in the dark regarding the Boardrsquos position3 Since in this
example the adverse party (ie Jones) already knows that he offered to settle the lawsuit for
$20000 there is no legitimate reason why the public should not also know of the tendered
settlement offer
As another example suppose that a personnel matter such as whether or not a Mrs
Smith a public works employee should be disciplined because of repeatedly arriving late to
work is to be discussed in closed session In such a case the amount of detail set forth in the
NJSA 104-13 resolution should correspond to the amount of detail that the Board and its
attorney predict will be publicly disclosed in the closed meetingrsquos minutes when those minutes
are made public
The standard that the Board is to use when determining how much information about a
personnel matter is to be disclosed in the closed sessionrsquos minutes is set forth in South Jersey
Publishing Company Inc v New Jersey Expressway Authority 124 NJ 478 (1991) That
standard is that a) the public needs information if it is properly fulfill its role of evaluating the
wisdom of governmental action or a decision not to act b) that New Jerseys strong public
policy requires that a public bodyrsquos actions and decisions to not act be disclosed in the bodys
closed meeting minutes along with sufficient facts and information to permit the public to
understand and appraise the reasonableness of the bodys determination and c) to the extent a
cognizable privacy interest may be compromised by the required disclosure the extent of
disclosure may be modified through redactions of the minutes provided the public interest in
disclosure is not subverted
2 NJSA104-12(b)(7) is to prevent adverse parties to litigation and contracts from learning the details of the
public bodyrsquos negotiation tactics and litigation strategy3 See the discussion in Paff v Washington Township Docket No MER-L-2205-07 and Nevin v Asbury Park City
Board 2005 WL 2847974 (App Div November 1 2005) which are on-line at
httpogtfarchiveorgOGTFWashingtonpdf (Nevin begins at page 44 of the PDF file at the link)
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 37 of 77
4
Thus regardless of whether the Board disciplines Ms Smith or chooses to not impose
discipline due to her lateness the outcome should be recorded in the closed meeting minutes
The question of whether that entry in the minutes should be redacted before the minutes are
made public requires a balancing of Ms Smithrsquos interest in keeping the disciplinary matter
private against the publicrsquos interest in effectively monitoring the Board If the Board with
counselrsquos advice determines after balancing these interests that the outcome will be published
unredacted in the closed sessionrsquos minutes (ie if the minutes will disclose to the public eg that
ldquoMs Smith was suspended for three days on account of her habitual latenessrdquo) then the exact
nature of the matter (ie that ldquothe Board will discuss disciplining Ms Smith for excessive
latenessrdquo) should be set forth in the closed meetingrsquos NJSA 104-13 resolution Inversely if the
Board determines that Ms Smithrsquos privacy interest exceeds the publicrsquos right to know then less
information (eg ldquothe Board will discuss disciplining an employee for excessive latenessrdquo)
should be set forth in the closed meetingrsquos NJSA 104-13 resolution
In other words if the officer or employee being discussed doesnt have a privacy interest
sufficient to withstand a citizens request for the executive session minutes why should not the
public know the topic of the executive session prior to it occurring
Irsquove attached as Exhibit pages 1 -3 is a model resolution that I would like the Board to
use in the future
Issue 2 Executive Session minutes
Attached as Exhibit Page 4 as an example are the Boardrsquos July 28 2010 executive session
minutes It is troubling that a meeting that lasted over an hour is being summed up in a single
sentence ldquoMr Phil Stern addressed the Board of Education about personnel issuesrdquo These
minutes are not ldquoreasonably comprehensiblerdquo as required by NJSA 104-14
The purpose of closed meeting minutes is not merely to inform the public of whatoccurred during the private session but also to create a record for the Board membersthemselves A Board member who is newly elected in 2012 should be able by referringsolely to the minutes to figure out what issues the Board addressed during any previouslyheld closed meeting This hypothetical Board member after reading the July 28 2010closed minutes could not possibly figure out which employees or officials Mr Stern wastalking about
Better practice would be to record closed minutes that are much morecomprehensive but to redact that material that must be shielded from public view Forexample the minutes could have said
Mr Stern addressed the Board of Education about the habitualtardiness of 2nd grade teacher Mary Doe and her propensity to eatlibrary paste and scream hysterically during fire drills Herecommended that she be sent for psychiatric evaluation
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 38 of 77
5
Of course if a member of the public requested these hypothetical minutes the Boardmay need to redact them in order to protect privacy interests The point however is thatregardless of whether unredacted closed meeting minutes are ever released to the publicthey should contain sufficient details so that the Board members themselves can monthsor years later know what was discussed
Attached as Exhibit pages 5 ndash 9 is an order recently entered in Schmidt et al v City of
Gloucester City et al Docket No CAM-L-1287-11 As you can see paraA(3) supports my position
that the Boardrsquos minutes are not ldquoreasonably comprehensiblerdquo as required by law
Conclusion
Since some public bodies do not take my requests for Meetings Act compliance seriously
I regret having to inform the Board that I will sue for declaratory and injunctive relief in
accordance with NJSA 104-16 unless I receive assurances from the Boardmdashwithin a few days
after its May 10 2011 meetingmdashthat it will work in good faith to improve the amount of
information in both its closed session resolutions and minutes If the Boardrsquos agenda is already
set for the May 10 2011 meeting please at least acknowledge this letter and let me know the
date of the meeting at which it will be considered
Thank you very much for your attention to this matter I look forward to hearing from
you
Sincerely
John Paff
cc Philip E Stern Esq w enc (via e-mail to psternasgllawcom )
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 39 of 77
RUNNEMEDE BOARD OF EDUCATIONRESOLUTION NO ___________
AUTHORIZING EXECUTIVE SESSION
WHEREAS while the Sen Byron M Baer Open Public Meetings Act (NJSA 104-6 et seq) requires allmeetings of the Runnemede Board of Education to be held in public NJSA 104-12(b) sets forth nine (9)types of matters that may lawfully be discussed in ldquoExecutive Sessionrdquo ie without the public beingpermitted to attend and
WHEREAS the Runnemede Board of Education has determined that _____ (insert number) issues arepermitted by NJSA 104-12(b) to be discussed without the public in attendance shall be discussed duringan Executive Session to be held on _________________________ 20____ at _______ PM and
WHEREAS the nine (9) exceptions to public meetings set forth in NJSA 104-12(b) are listed below andnext to each exception is a box within which the number of issues to be privately discussed that fall withinthat exception shall be written and after each exception is a space where additional information that willdisclose as much information about the discussion as possible without undermining the purpose of theexception shall be written
ldquo(1) Any matter which by express provision of Federal law State statute or rule of courtshall be rendered confidential or excluded from public discussionrdquo The legal citation to theprovision(s) at issue is__________________________ and the nature of the matter described asspecifically as possible without undermining the need for confidentiality is _______________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(2) Any matter in which the release of information would impair a right to receive fundsfrom the federal governmentrdquo The nature of the matter described as specifically as possiblewithout undermining the need for confidentiality is _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(3) Any material the disclosure of which constitutes an unwarranted invasion of individualprivacy such as any records data reports recommendations or other personal material ofany educational training social service medical health custodial child protectionrehabilitation legal defense welfare housing relocation insurance and similar program orinstitution operated by a public body pertaining to any specific individual admitted to orserved by such institution or program including but not limited to information relative tothe individuals personal and family circumstances and any material pertaining toadmission discharge treatment progress or condition of any individual unless theindividual concerned (or in the case of a minor or incompetent his guardian) shall requestin writing that the same be disclosed publiclyrdquo The nature of the matter described asspecifically as possible without undermining the need for confidentiality is______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(4) Any collective bargaining agreement or the terms and conditions of which are proposedfor inclusion in any collective bargaining agreement including the negotiation of terms andconditions with employees or representatives of employees of the public bodyrdquo The collectivebargaining contract(s) discussed are between the Board and ____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Exhibit Page 1Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 40 of 77
ldquo(5) Any matter involving the purchase lease or acquisition of real property with publicfunds the setting of bank rates or investment of public funds where it could adversely affectthe public interest if discussion of such matters were disclosedrdquo The nature of the matterdescribed as specifically as possible without undermining the need for confidentiality is____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(6) Any tactics and techniques utilized in protecting the safety and property of the publicprovided that their disclosure could impair such protection Any investigations of violationsor possible violations of the lawrdquo The nature of the matter described as specifically as possiblewithout undermining the need for confidentiality is ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(7) Any pending or anticipated litigation or contract negotiation in which the public body isor may become a party Any matters falling within the attorney-client privilege to the extentthat confidentiality is required in order for the attorney to exercise his ethicalduties as a lawyerrdquo The parties to and docket numbers of each item of litigation andor theparties to each contract discussed are __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ andnature of the discussion described as specifically as possible without undermining the need forconfidentiality is ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(8) Any matter involving the employment appointment termination of employment termsand conditions of employment evaluation of the performance promotion or disciplining ofany specific prospective public officer or employee or current public officer or employeeemployed or appointed by the public body unless all individual employees or appointees whoserights could be adversely affected request in writing that such matter or matters be discussed ata public meetingrdquo Subject to the balancing of the publicrsquos interest and the employeersquos privacyrights under South Jersey Publishing Co v New Jersey Expressway Authority 124 NJ 478 theemployee(s) and nature of the discussion described as specifically as possible withoutundermining the need for confidentiality are _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(9) Any deliberation of a public body occurring after a public hearing that may result in theimposition of a specific civil penalty upon the responding party or the suspension or loss of alicense or permit belonging to the responding party as a result of an act of omission forwhich the responding party bears responsibilityrdquo The nature of the matter described asspecifically as possible without undermining the need for confidentiality is______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
WHEREAS the length of the Executive Session is estimated to be ________ minutes after which the publicmeeting of the Board shall (circle one) reconvene and immediately adjourn or reconvene and proceed withbusiness
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Runnemede Board of Education will go into ExecutiveSession for only the above stated reasons
Exhibit Page 2Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 41 of 77
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board hereby declares that its discussion of the aforementionedsubject(s) will be made public at a time when the publicrsquos interest in disclosure is greater than any privacy orgovernmental interest being protected from disclosure For each of the above items the estimated date bywhich such disclosure can be made andor the occurrence that needs to take place before disclosure can bemade are listed below (attach separate sheet if necessary)
Subject of Discussion Estimated Date Necessary Occurrence
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Clerk at the present public meeting shall read aloud enough ofthis resolution so that members of the public in attendance can understand as precisely as possible thenature of the matters that will privately discussed
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Clerk on the next business day following this meeting shallfurnish a copy of this resolution to any member of the public who requests one at the fees allowed byNJSA 471A-1 et seq
_________________________________Board President
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS ATRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTIONAPPROVED BY THE RUNNEMEDE BOARD OF EDUCATION AT ITSPUBLIC MEETING HELD ON ______________________20___
_______________________________________Board Secretary
Exhibit Page 3Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 42 of 77
Exhibit Page 4Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 43 of 77
Exhibit Page 5Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 44 of 77
Exhibit Page 6Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 45 of 77
Exhibit Page 7Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 46 of 77
Exhibit Page 8Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 47 of 77
Exhibit Page 9Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 48 of 77
Subject Records RequestFrom John Paff ltpaffpoboxcomgtDate Sat 07 May 2011 161444 -0400To vcarmodyrunnemedeschoolsorgCC psternasgllawcom
Ms Carmody
Please accept this e-mail as my request for government records inaccordance with the Open Public Records Act (OPRA) and the commonlaw right of access Please respond and send all responsivedocuments to me via e-mail at paffpoboxcom If e-mail is notpossible please fax responses and responsive records to me at908-325-0129 Also I would appreciate it if you wouldacknowledge your receipt of this e-mail
Background
In response to a records request I recently received redactedexecutive session minutes for the following dates July 28 2010(first session) August 26 2010 February 2 2011 February 232011 (two sessions) and March 2 2011 Although Mr Stern providedme with a sheet entitled Documents Exempt From OPRA request thatpurports to explain these redactions I am still unclear as to whythe matter was redacted and whether it was lawfully redacted
First I dont understand references such as NJSA 471A-11(12)(c) The version of OPRA that I have (plus every other oneIve seen) does not have internal numbers within NJSA471A-11 Am I correct that NJSA 471A-11(12)(c) isintended to refer to the exemption for records in connection withcollective negotiations including documents and statements ofstrategy or negotiating position and that NJSA 471A-11(7)is intended to refer to any record within the attorney-clientprivilege This paragraph shall not be construed as exempting fromaccess attorney or consultant bills or invoices except that suchbills or invoices may be redacted to remove any informationprotected by the attorney-client privilege Please advise
Second even if I correctly corresponded the claimed exemptions tothe OPRA statute I have no way of knowing whether the mattersredacted are actually exempt from access When a custodiansuppresses any portion of any requested record NJSA471A-5(g) requires him or her to state the ldquospecific basisrdquo foreach suppressed element Beyond stating the ldquospecific basisrdquo foreach suppressed element he or she is required to ldquoproduce
Records Request
1 of 2 622011 810 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 49 of 77
specific reliable evidence sufficient to meet a statutorilyrecognized basis for confidentialityrdquo Courier News v HunterdonCounty Prosecutorrsquos Office 358 NJ Super 373 382-83 (App Div2003) Further he or she must explain each suppression in amanner that ldquowill enable other parties to assess the applicabilityof the privilege or protectionrdquo Paff v New Jersey Department ofLabor Board of Review 379 NJ Super 346 354-55 (2005)(quoting R 410-2(e))
Records requested
Runnemede Board of Education minutes for the following dates July28 2010 (728 pm session only) August 26 2010 February 22011 February 23 2011 (both sessions) and March 2 2011 Iwould like these minutes redacted as narrowly as possible if atall For each redaction I request a written explanation thatmeets the requirements of the case law cited above
cc Phil Stern
Records Request
2 of 2 622011 810 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 50 of 77
Subject Re Fwd Runnemede Board of Education Open PublicMeetings ActFrom John Paff ltpaffpoboxcomgtDate Mon 09 May 2011 134726 -0400To Nancy Ward ltnwardrunnemedeschoolsorggt
Thank you
On 592011 116 PM Nancy Ward wrote
Mr Paff
The Board has named me Custodian of Records Please direct allfuturecommunication to me The May 10 2011 meeting is theRe-organization ofthe Runnemede Board of Education The agenda is set and is verycomprehensive I intend to defer the letter and any discussionregardingits content to the next regular meeting the date of which willbe setat the re-organization tomorrow night In keeping with thedistrictsmeeting pattern that will be May 25 2011
Nancy BWard EdD
Superintendent of Schools
-----Original Message-----From John PaffSent 572011 42300 PMTo nwardrunnemedeschoolsorgCc vcarmodyrunnemedeschoolsorg psternasgllawcomSubject Fwd Runnemede Board of Education Open Public MeetingsAct
Here is another e-mail in case my original one should have beendirected to Ms Ward and not Ms Carmody
JP
-------- Original Message --------Subject Runnemede Board of Education Open Public Meetings ActDate Sat 07 May 2011 152319 -0400From John Paff
Re Fwd Runnemede Board of Education Open Public Meetings Act
1 of 2 622011 811 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 51 of 77
Reply-To paffpoboxcomTo vcarmodyrunnemedeschoolsorg psternasgllawcom
Ms Carmody and Mr Stern
Attached is a letter that I would like the Board to consider atits May10 2011 meeting Would you please a) acknowledge receipt of theletterand b) distribute it to all the Board members
Note that the last paragraph of the letter indicates that I willfilesuit against the Board if the issues in the letter arentaddressedSo if the Boards agenda for the May 10th meeting is so tightthat myletter cannot be accommodated please advise me of such andprovide ameeting date where my letter will be addressed so that I knowthat I amnot being ignored
Thank you
John Paff ChairmanNew Jersey Libertarian PartysOpen Government Advocacy Project
Re Fwd Runnemede Board of Education Open Public Meetings Act
2 of 2 622011 811 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 52 of 77
Subject OPRA RequestFrom Philip Stern ltpsternasgllawcomgtDate Fri 20 May 2011 161015 -0500To paffpoboxcom ltpaffpoboxcomgtCC Nancy Ward ltnwardrunnemedeschoolsorggt
Mr Paff please find attached to this email a response to your request forbusiness records Please note that in providing you with the attachedrecords the Runnemede Borough Board of Education waives no rightsregarding the attorney-client privilege Do not hesitate to call me if youhave any questions Phil Stern
Philip E SternAdams Stern Gutierrez amp Lattiboudere LLCThe Legal Center1037 Raymond Blvd Suite 710Newark New Jersey 07102(973) 735-2742 (office telephone)(201) 914-2415 (cellular telephone)(973) 735-2743 (office telefax)
May 20 Paff responsepdf
Content-DescriptionMay 20 Paffresponsepdf
Content-Type applicationpdf
Content-Encoding base64
OPRA Request
1 of 1 622011 815 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 53 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 54 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 55 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 56 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 57 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 58 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 59 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 60 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 61 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 62 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 63 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 64 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 65 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 66 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 67 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 68 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 69 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 70 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 71 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 72 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 73 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 74 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 75 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 76 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 77 of 77
- Civil Complaint
- Exhibits
-
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 5 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 6 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 7 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 8 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 9 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 10 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 11 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 12 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 13 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 14 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 15 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 16 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 17 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 18 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 19 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 20 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 21 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 22 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 23 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 24 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 25 of 77
Idled officials payout riles Runnemede
By BARBARA S ROTHSCHILD bull Courier-Post Staff bull March 5 2011
RUNNEMEDE mdash Although the school district is paying Business Administrator Kelly PetersBrazelton her full salary to stay home while paying for an interim employee RunnemedeSuperintendent Nancy Ward said it could have cost more not to have a separationagreement
New Jersey is a very litigious state she said In order to avoid litigation which neveris a good thing a separation agreement gives you a certain outcome
Brazelton a Deptford resident and the former business administrator for the SomerdalePublic School District began working for Runnemede schools in August 2008 Her mostrecent contract for July 1 2010 through June 30 is for $99465 plus benefits
But the relationship soured and the district would not comment on specifics citingconfidentiality
A letter from staff members written to Ward and the school board in July 2010 gaveexamples of a hostile work environment that they said was created by the businessadministrator
Brazelton could not be reached Her attorney Joseph Betley of Mount Laurel said hisclient signed the separation agreement in good faith
There was a disagreement between the board and Kelly he said It was resolved andboth sides decided to move on
She disputes any and all allegations regarding a hostile work environment It wassimply Kelly doing her job
The separation agreement and release dated Oct 20 stipulates Brazelton be placed ona paid leave of absence from Sept 23 to April 15 at which time she would irrevocablyresign
School board President Colleen Kurth said it was much easier to go with a separationagreement than pay more legal fees
She compared paying Brazelton to paying a teacher out sick while a substitute fills in
The job just has to go on Kurth said
Interim Business Administrator Valerie Carmody who retired from the same post in EastGreenwich last year was hired Dec 1 at $60 per hour 24 hours maximum per weekHer contract ends June 30
New Jersey School Boards Association spokesman Mike Yaple said such separationagreements are infrequent
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 26 of 77
No school board willingly enters into an agreement like this he insisted But eventhough its not a popular decision its the lesser of two evils
Residents unhappy about the districts handling of the situation include Dan Conard ajournalism student at Rowan University Conard writes a blog where he discusses schooldistrict and municipal matters To comment on this topic he filed Open Public RecordsAct (OPRA) document requests
I just wanted to get it out there so people know what is going on Conard said
Ward said she has no quarrel with the student but believes Brazeltons case is anunusual circumstance
It (the separation agreement) was the most responsible thing the district could havedone she insisted Was it a bitter pill to swallow It took the board (a while) beforethey felt it was something they could do but it makes the most sense
Ward said the part-time arrangement with Carmody is working out well and that as thedistrict improves efficiency it is unlikely another full-time business administrator will behired particularly when Executive County Superintendent Peggy Nicolosi has advisedagainst it
Among the options being considered are another part-time business administrator or ashared-service agreement with another district
Ward said she would have preferred the money being expended in this case be spent oneducational programs and teachers particularly this year
Although voters passed Runnemedes 2010-11 budget while many others were defeatedlast April the district of 853 students in K-8 lost six staffers and streamlined its gifted-and-talented program after state aid was cut
Ward also defended the decision to keep a maintenance techniciansupervisor positioncreated in 2008 noting it has saved at least $145000 each year
Mark Speck of Voorhees earns $50000 in the post Through June 2010 it was filled byDoug McGarry a former building and grounds supervisor in the Somerdale district Heearned $60000 in Runnemede but had more experience than Speck Ward said
Before Brazelton arrived in Runnemede the business administrator also served asmaintenance supervisor Ward said that actually cost the district more because it had topay outside maintenance workers sometimes for faulty work
Many things had been done to the facilities that were not to the boards satisfactionshe said That first year with our own maintenance person we saved $145000 becausewe hired a person who fixed things
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 27 of 77
Speck works with vendors going over bids and quotes and also does minor repairs thatno longer have to be paid for piecemeal Ward said the position is staying in the 2011-2012 budget adopted preliminarily on Wednesday
Hes the guy whos here at 4 am making sure weve got snow plows when we needthem Ward said Hes dirty and sweaty -- and hes excellent
Ward said the budget sent to the county includes a $78 annual tax increase for theowner of a home assessed at the $97800 borough average but does not cut staff orprograms
Kurth hopes to tweak the budget and lower the tax hike before it is introduced to thepublic on March 23 But she agreed the maintenance supervisor will stay
That was an investment on the part of the school district Kurth said
Reach Barbara S Rothschild at (856) 486-2416 or barothschildcamdengannettcom
--Comments
User Imageamonkeycoulddoit wroteThe mayor cant hear you because she doesnt even know how to turn on a computerNot that it was a requirement that the mayor should know how to use one I think theonly requirement is that they have a pulse And she does but barely372011 12406 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imageamonkeycoulddoit wroteTo sickofpolsnj it does seem that snoopysam has some inside information And whenyou say hows that mayors race looking I hope that you dont mean that someone fromthe disfunctional school board is going to run for mayor or council or some other electedposition considering the mess that they made on the school board372011 11832 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imageamonkeycoulddoit wroteIf the school board president had listened to staff when the hostil work enviroment issuestarted then she might not be in this pickle She should have spent the money on thelegal fees because if everything is true about the hostile enviroment then they wouldhave won the lawsuit hands down and not had to pay out anything and gotten their legalfees back Another example of elected officials not capable of doing the job they are inLets hope that some people come out of the woodwork to run for school board peoplewho care about the kids and the taxpayers372011 11309 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imageamonkeycoulddoit wrote
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 28 of 77
The school boad is not as inept as the mayor and council You dont have to be a collegegraduate or or even be able to read or write to get an elected position in runnemedeThe 2 new council members got elected because the are involved in the union andeveryone who supports the union came out to vote And the new mayor must have a lotof friends But now after the few months they have been in office it is clear to see thatthey are not able to handle the job Mayor14 is right that the people of Runnemedevoted because they thought they would get something in return for their vote but itlooks like they were wrong In the upcoming elections for school board and council votefor the person who will do the best job whether you like them or not Dont just vote forsomeone because you are told to372011 10214 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagethemayor14 wrotei am so glad this article was written and it clearly points out how inept the runnemedeboard of education actually is the board of education is not elected based on businessand education talent the elections are nothing more than a popularity contest i dontknow how other towns operate but runnemede boro is a total joke when it come toelections be it school board or general elections i wish everyone would get their headsout of their A$$ and truly investigate the school board canidates that are running forelection VOTE WITH YOUR HEAD NOT WITH YOUR HEART362011 91350 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagesavetheschools wroteSeveral people are running for the board for four open seats I signed a petition todayfor a new woman running Members are not paid If you live in Runnemede shopstewardyou have until Tuesday to get a petition submitted I asked and found out there is only 5people on average at the BOE meetings every month in Runnemede I hope more peoplestart to go I plan on it myself And we all need to go every month not just when weread negative press about our schools That is the only way we would all stay informedand not rely on the young man submitting OPRA requests Our town has always beenabout the kids and it needs to get back that way362011 80936 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser ImageShopsteward wroteWhy did it take one young man sending in OPRA requests to bring all this to lightWhy are you relying upon him to get to the bottom of it You say The other members(except for the one who was just arrested and resigned) are good people and didnothing wrong to the district and that might be true except for the fact that theyallowed that incredible salary and benefits to be given out and even though all kinds ofrumors were flying around it took an outsider with OPRA requests to bring this ghastlypimple to a head Sounds more like none of them are doing their jobs and should be outof office and off the payroll They should all just resign They arent doing the job thatwas assigned to them362011 32559 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Image
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 29 of 77
Shopsteward wroteA crime was committed here It began with a violation of the Publics trust by the peoplewho allowed this contract to be signed in the first place What a jokeHow many moreof these jobs are hidden in the budgets of our Schools There needs to be a thouroughcleaning of all thses tyeps of employees everywhere At the State County Municipaland Scool board level and the appointed Authorities too Everyone screams about theUnions but whenever you hear of some great big abuse it turns out the person wasnteven in the UnionClean up this mess first Mr Christie before yougo after the little guys It will save us all a lot more money362011 101606 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser ImageShopsteward wroteI still dont get itHow is a part time24 hr a week job worth so much This is aprime example of the waste that is giving the public workers a bad nameThe onlyproblem is it isnt some Union personIts management and its the same all over This isjust the tip of the iceberg they scream about the Unions but the real waste is in jobs likethis oneNo way this job or the thousands of others like it should be paid so well99465 PLUS BENEFITS incrediblethere should be a lawandthe person gets a pension based on that bloated salarytooThere should be other people losing their jobs not for theseperation aggreement but for letting this evenhappen352011 101125 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagethesplits wroteI guess this is Runnemedes version of a shared service352011 73450 PM
User Imagethesplits wroteLooks like its the same old Runnemede and I thought we voted for change Mayor352011 73202 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagesavetheschools wroteFrom what I understand and I live in town the board went into this separationagreement because the BA would have had a potential lawsuit and it would have costthe school district and tax payers a ton of money Much more than they are spendingnow And yes it is one school board member who was apparently corrupt Just one Theyoung man who was mentioned in the article has been OPRA requesting items and willget to the bottom of this situation with the former BA and the certain board memberBut that is just one person The other members (except for the one who was justarrested and resigned) are good people and did nothing wrong to the district Thisformer BA and her friend who was hired as the maint supervisor have been a hot topicfor a few years Ask the employees they were awful and needed to go It is awful thatthis money was not spent on our children It was a trainwreck from the beginning and ifI recall correctly when the hiring took place only one of the members voted no and that
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 30 of 77
was the local high school teacher metioned in another post Runnemede schools arefantastic and maybe the new people running for election will get some answers andmake some changes And maybe the BOE member who was mentioned by employees asbeing the reason why there could be a possible lawsuit should just resign I understandadmin make good money but they also need to be accountable for their actions and ifthe BA made a hostile environment and was supported by one BOE member both shouldbe gonenot just the BA352011 33207 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagecookmom wroteWhere is Gov Christies veto power352011 30321 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagecookmom wroteThis all happened with a local police officer and a FOP member and local high schoolteacher and member of the NJEA on the board The Runnemede Board is looking alotlike the DRPA and was this group picked by the new Mayor352011 30042 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagesickofpolsnj wroteThe real truth is the Board of Education member and Brazelton and the unethicalsituation that THEY created The questionable contracts and underhanded deals There isa certain Board Member that hopes that this ends here well it doesnt There is not aTeacher or employee in Runnemede Schools that would defend Brazelton same goes forSomerdale And many are willing to bring out MANY of the things that Brazelton did todestroy the district The ENTIRE Runnemede School Community is thrilled that Brazeltonis gone Snoopysam is clearly one of two people Kelly or the Board Member shouldwe name names Hows that Mayors race looking352011 114254 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser ImageShopsteward wrote$99465 plus benefits How much does she pay for her share of those benefitsor are they free to her Her replacement only works 24 hours a week are we being toldthat she got that much money for a part time job What is the matter with theidiots that hired her to begin withNo one should get that kind of money for a part timeThat is an awful lot of money for that kind of job We should not be surprised at all Thiskind of thing is everywhere in Camden CountyIts the NORMAL way of doingbusiness352011 113922 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagelookfar111 wroteYep same old story hire someone for $98000 when 10 equally qualified people woulddo it for 60k with a 20 year top out at 75 k Then a sweetheart adios gift And the cherry
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 31 of 77
on top Another tax increase for the people God I hate what the democrat machinehave done to this once great state352011 111649 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser ImageSnoopysam wrotesickofpolsnj you must be on ot those employees that Brazelton held accountable forHER actions You are right there is so much more to this story and when the real truthscome out there will be some emplopyeesadministratorsboard members hanging theirheads in shame Talk about wasting taxpayer dollars take a look at some of the lazyincompetent employees that Brazelton had to deal withand their HUGE mistakes thathad to be corrected which cost the taxpayers thousands upon thousands of dollars352011 94250 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagesickofpolsnj wroteYou are exactly correct A teacher would never get a sweatheart deal like this I wonderwhich Board Member it was that was mentioned in that letter Did you read the blog thatthis all came out on it has way more details than this articlehttpdansviewrunnemedewordpresscom352011 92934 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagesickofpolsnj wroteOnly thing is Runnemede never had these issues Somerdale had the same EXACT issueswith Brazelton Administrators arent allowed to comment however talk to the teachersand employees off record they will tell you all about Kelly352011 92726 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagesickofpolsnj wroteThere is so much more to this story I hope the CP will run a follow up 1 Look into therealtionship and hiring surrounding Doug the maintenance supervisor 2 Check intoBrazeltons past employment Somerdale Schools 3 Brazelton is rumored to be hired atthe completion of the settlement in Deptford 4 Look into unethical practices between aBoard Member and Brazelton 5 And what about the other Board member that wasrecently charged with a serious crime352011 92315 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imageicallbullschit wroteOnce again the government tries to pin their mistakes on an individual when they screwup royally What the paper fails to report is the other side Maybe years and years ofmismanagement and patronage were uncovered and it became a hostile environmentwhen people got called on their actions and the same old routine was stopped Maybethe school board realized it would be cheaper to pay one than to pay many for theirmistakes Maybe the school board was willing to pay in order to keep their dirty littlesecrets covered up Maybe the resident should look deeper into the actions of the schoolboard and the rest of the administration Maybe I am wrong but it seems that the board
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 32 of 77
got called on some issues and now they are attacking one individual to cover theirtracks They seem to be acting like the GREAT WIZARD OF OZ Pay no attention to theidiots behind the curtain we are the all powerful and all knowing school board Pull backthe curtain people because there are people behind there that are faking their waythrough and going to wind up costing the district millions Just saying352011 85642 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagecookmom wroteSchool board President Colleen Kurth said it was much easier to go with a separationagreement than pay more legal fees She compared paying Brazelton to paying ateacher out sick while a substitute fills in The job just has to go on Kurth said I amconfused A teacher out SICK is NOT the same as a HOSTILE work enviorment How cana medical condition be compared to a person being accused of a hostile workenviorment A teacher would be REQUIRED to use their sick days~ since this is beingcompared to an illness ~was Brazelton REQUIRED to give up her sickvacation pay orwas that part of the dealWas she also paid for those days Wouldnt we all love to becollecting a salary from two towns As now she is being paid by Runnemde AND acurrent SCHOOL district where she is currently employed THIS is the waste in ourSchool districts352011 83552 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imageneocon wroteShe is part of the Protected Classes All you need to know is that she is better thanyou so just keep moveing along Nothing to see here352011 81912 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report Abuse
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 33 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 34 of 77
New Jersey Libertarian PartyOpen Government Advocacy Project
John Paff Chairman
PO Box 5424
Somerset NJ 08875-5424
Phone 732-873-1251 - Fax 908-325-0129
Email lpsmcpoboxcom
May 7 2011
Hon Colleen Kurth President and members of the
Runnemede Board of Education
505 W Third Ave
Runnemede NJ 08078 (via e-mail to vcarmodyrunnemedeschoolsorg )
Dear President Kurth and Board members
I write both individually and on behalf the New Jersey Libertarian Partys Open
Government Advocacy Project to comment on 1) the manner in which the Board of Education
goes into nonpublic (ie executive or closed) session and 2) the level of detail contained within
the Boardrsquos executive session minutes
Issue 1 Executive Session resolutions
As you are aware the Senator Byron M Baer Open Public Meetings Act requires public
bodies such as the Runnemede Board of Education to publicly pass a resolution before
excluding the public from a meeting The statute that requires the resolution states
NJSA 104-13mdashClosed meetings resolution to conduct
No public body shall exclude the public from any meeting to discuss any
matter described in subsection 7 b (104-12) until the public body shall
first adopt a resolution at a meeting to which the public shall be admitted
a Stating the general nature of the subject to be discussed and
b Stating as precisely as possible the time when and the circumstances
under which the discussion conducted in closed session of the public body
can be disclosed to the public
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 35 of 77
2
By way of a recent records request I received resolutions which purport to authorize
executive sessions intended to be held by the Board of Education on July 28 2010 (2 sessions)
August 20 2010 February 2 1011 February 23 2011 (2 sessions) and March 2 2011 Those
resolutions which are virtually identical to each other state
Executive Session to discuss student matters personnel contractual and
legal matters [time and a statement as to whether action will be
taken]
[identity of maker of motion etc]
Resolved that pursuant to Section 8 of the Public Meetings Act the public
shall be excluded from that portion of the meeting involving the discussion
of personnel legal and contractual matters Further resolved that
discussion of such subject matters discussed in Executive Session can be
disclosed to public upon official action if any at the conclusion of the
executive session or at a public session at some later date
I dont think that this form of resolution satisfies NJSA 104-13 because it gives the
public no real sense of what is being privately discussed1 To paraphrase the highest court of of
another state a body which only announces ldquolegal mattersrdquo or ldquopersonnel negotiationsrdquo for
going into executive session has said nothing It might has well have stated to the audience
ldquoLadies and gentlemen we are going into executive sessionrdquo and stopped there Hinds County
Board of Supervisors v Common Cause of Mississippi 551 So2d 107 114 (MS 1989)
Of course there can be no dispute that the Board of Education often has legitimate
reasons to meet in nonpublic session Among these reasons is the need to prevent the adverse
parties in litigation or contract negotiations from gaining an unfair advantage and to allow
members of the governing body to debate and deliberate personnel matters without public
scrutiny or participation But the need to discuss matters privately should not prevent the
public from being informed as precisely as possible of the topics that are being privately
discussed
For example suppose that Runnemede Board is being sued by a Mr Jones who was
injured after he slipped and fell on what he claims to be negligently maintained school
property Since the lawsuit is already a public record there is no public purpose served by
vaguely describing a private discussion of it as ldquostudent matters personnel contractual and
legal mattersrdquo Rather the resolution should at the very least describe the private discussion as
1 In January 2007 when I most recently litigated this issue Middlesex County Superior Court Judge Alexander P
Waugh issued a written decision in which he agreed with other court decisions that closed session resolutions
should contain as much information as is consistent with full public knowledge without doing any harm to the
public interest Judge Waughs decision and other case documents are on the Web at
httpogtfarchiveorgOGTFMonroeBOEWebreadypdf
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 36 of 77
3
ldquoDiscussion of slip and fall negligence suit Jones v Runnemede Board Docket No CAM-L-
012345-11rdquo This way the public has a very good sense of what the Boardrsquos private discussion is
about while the ability of the Board to develop its lawsuit strategy is not undermined
Using the same example suppose that Jonesrsquo attorney sent the Boardrsquos attorney an offer
to fully settle the lawsuit upon the Boardrsquos payment of $20000 While the Board would
obviously need to discuss how to respond to the offer in private lest Jones or his attorney
would be in the audience witnessing the discussion there is no reason why the public cannot be
informed in the NJSA 104-13 resolution that the Board will meet in private to discuss ldquoa
settlement offer received from the Plaintiff in the slip and fall negligence suit known as Jones v
Runnemede Board Docket No CAM-L-012345-11 in which the Plaintiff offers to settle the suit
in exchange for the Board paying him $20000rdquo While it may initially seem that this would
provide ldquotoo muchrdquo information to the public this concern disappears once it is realized that
the sole purpose of the exception2 that allows litigation matters to be discussed in private is to
keep the adverse party to the litigation in the dark regarding the Boardrsquos position3 Since in this
example the adverse party (ie Jones) already knows that he offered to settle the lawsuit for
$20000 there is no legitimate reason why the public should not also know of the tendered
settlement offer
As another example suppose that a personnel matter such as whether or not a Mrs
Smith a public works employee should be disciplined because of repeatedly arriving late to
work is to be discussed in closed session In such a case the amount of detail set forth in the
NJSA 104-13 resolution should correspond to the amount of detail that the Board and its
attorney predict will be publicly disclosed in the closed meetingrsquos minutes when those minutes
are made public
The standard that the Board is to use when determining how much information about a
personnel matter is to be disclosed in the closed sessionrsquos minutes is set forth in South Jersey
Publishing Company Inc v New Jersey Expressway Authority 124 NJ 478 (1991) That
standard is that a) the public needs information if it is properly fulfill its role of evaluating the
wisdom of governmental action or a decision not to act b) that New Jerseys strong public
policy requires that a public bodyrsquos actions and decisions to not act be disclosed in the bodys
closed meeting minutes along with sufficient facts and information to permit the public to
understand and appraise the reasonableness of the bodys determination and c) to the extent a
cognizable privacy interest may be compromised by the required disclosure the extent of
disclosure may be modified through redactions of the minutes provided the public interest in
disclosure is not subverted
2 NJSA104-12(b)(7) is to prevent adverse parties to litigation and contracts from learning the details of the
public bodyrsquos negotiation tactics and litigation strategy3 See the discussion in Paff v Washington Township Docket No MER-L-2205-07 and Nevin v Asbury Park City
Board 2005 WL 2847974 (App Div November 1 2005) which are on-line at
httpogtfarchiveorgOGTFWashingtonpdf (Nevin begins at page 44 of the PDF file at the link)
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 37 of 77
4
Thus regardless of whether the Board disciplines Ms Smith or chooses to not impose
discipline due to her lateness the outcome should be recorded in the closed meeting minutes
The question of whether that entry in the minutes should be redacted before the minutes are
made public requires a balancing of Ms Smithrsquos interest in keeping the disciplinary matter
private against the publicrsquos interest in effectively monitoring the Board If the Board with
counselrsquos advice determines after balancing these interests that the outcome will be published
unredacted in the closed sessionrsquos minutes (ie if the minutes will disclose to the public eg that
ldquoMs Smith was suspended for three days on account of her habitual latenessrdquo) then the exact
nature of the matter (ie that ldquothe Board will discuss disciplining Ms Smith for excessive
latenessrdquo) should be set forth in the closed meetingrsquos NJSA 104-13 resolution Inversely if the
Board determines that Ms Smithrsquos privacy interest exceeds the publicrsquos right to know then less
information (eg ldquothe Board will discuss disciplining an employee for excessive latenessrdquo)
should be set forth in the closed meetingrsquos NJSA 104-13 resolution
In other words if the officer or employee being discussed doesnt have a privacy interest
sufficient to withstand a citizens request for the executive session minutes why should not the
public know the topic of the executive session prior to it occurring
Irsquove attached as Exhibit pages 1 -3 is a model resolution that I would like the Board to
use in the future
Issue 2 Executive Session minutes
Attached as Exhibit Page 4 as an example are the Boardrsquos July 28 2010 executive session
minutes It is troubling that a meeting that lasted over an hour is being summed up in a single
sentence ldquoMr Phil Stern addressed the Board of Education about personnel issuesrdquo These
minutes are not ldquoreasonably comprehensiblerdquo as required by NJSA 104-14
The purpose of closed meeting minutes is not merely to inform the public of whatoccurred during the private session but also to create a record for the Board membersthemselves A Board member who is newly elected in 2012 should be able by referringsolely to the minutes to figure out what issues the Board addressed during any previouslyheld closed meeting This hypothetical Board member after reading the July 28 2010closed minutes could not possibly figure out which employees or officials Mr Stern wastalking about
Better practice would be to record closed minutes that are much morecomprehensive but to redact that material that must be shielded from public view Forexample the minutes could have said
Mr Stern addressed the Board of Education about the habitualtardiness of 2nd grade teacher Mary Doe and her propensity to eatlibrary paste and scream hysterically during fire drills Herecommended that she be sent for psychiatric evaluation
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 38 of 77
5
Of course if a member of the public requested these hypothetical minutes the Boardmay need to redact them in order to protect privacy interests The point however is thatregardless of whether unredacted closed meeting minutes are ever released to the publicthey should contain sufficient details so that the Board members themselves can monthsor years later know what was discussed
Attached as Exhibit pages 5 ndash 9 is an order recently entered in Schmidt et al v City of
Gloucester City et al Docket No CAM-L-1287-11 As you can see paraA(3) supports my position
that the Boardrsquos minutes are not ldquoreasonably comprehensiblerdquo as required by law
Conclusion
Since some public bodies do not take my requests for Meetings Act compliance seriously
I regret having to inform the Board that I will sue for declaratory and injunctive relief in
accordance with NJSA 104-16 unless I receive assurances from the Boardmdashwithin a few days
after its May 10 2011 meetingmdashthat it will work in good faith to improve the amount of
information in both its closed session resolutions and minutes If the Boardrsquos agenda is already
set for the May 10 2011 meeting please at least acknowledge this letter and let me know the
date of the meeting at which it will be considered
Thank you very much for your attention to this matter I look forward to hearing from
you
Sincerely
John Paff
cc Philip E Stern Esq w enc (via e-mail to psternasgllawcom )
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 39 of 77
RUNNEMEDE BOARD OF EDUCATIONRESOLUTION NO ___________
AUTHORIZING EXECUTIVE SESSION
WHEREAS while the Sen Byron M Baer Open Public Meetings Act (NJSA 104-6 et seq) requires allmeetings of the Runnemede Board of Education to be held in public NJSA 104-12(b) sets forth nine (9)types of matters that may lawfully be discussed in ldquoExecutive Sessionrdquo ie without the public beingpermitted to attend and
WHEREAS the Runnemede Board of Education has determined that _____ (insert number) issues arepermitted by NJSA 104-12(b) to be discussed without the public in attendance shall be discussed duringan Executive Session to be held on _________________________ 20____ at _______ PM and
WHEREAS the nine (9) exceptions to public meetings set forth in NJSA 104-12(b) are listed below andnext to each exception is a box within which the number of issues to be privately discussed that fall withinthat exception shall be written and after each exception is a space where additional information that willdisclose as much information about the discussion as possible without undermining the purpose of theexception shall be written
ldquo(1) Any matter which by express provision of Federal law State statute or rule of courtshall be rendered confidential or excluded from public discussionrdquo The legal citation to theprovision(s) at issue is__________________________ and the nature of the matter described asspecifically as possible without undermining the need for confidentiality is _______________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(2) Any matter in which the release of information would impair a right to receive fundsfrom the federal governmentrdquo The nature of the matter described as specifically as possiblewithout undermining the need for confidentiality is _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(3) Any material the disclosure of which constitutes an unwarranted invasion of individualprivacy such as any records data reports recommendations or other personal material ofany educational training social service medical health custodial child protectionrehabilitation legal defense welfare housing relocation insurance and similar program orinstitution operated by a public body pertaining to any specific individual admitted to orserved by such institution or program including but not limited to information relative tothe individuals personal and family circumstances and any material pertaining toadmission discharge treatment progress or condition of any individual unless theindividual concerned (or in the case of a minor or incompetent his guardian) shall requestin writing that the same be disclosed publiclyrdquo The nature of the matter described asspecifically as possible without undermining the need for confidentiality is______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(4) Any collective bargaining agreement or the terms and conditions of which are proposedfor inclusion in any collective bargaining agreement including the negotiation of terms andconditions with employees or representatives of employees of the public bodyrdquo The collectivebargaining contract(s) discussed are between the Board and ____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Exhibit Page 1Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 40 of 77
ldquo(5) Any matter involving the purchase lease or acquisition of real property with publicfunds the setting of bank rates or investment of public funds where it could adversely affectthe public interest if discussion of such matters were disclosedrdquo The nature of the matterdescribed as specifically as possible without undermining the need for confidentiality is____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(6) Any tactics and techniques utilized in protecting the safety and property of the publicprovided that their disclosure could impair such protection Any investigations of violationsor possible violations of the lawrdquo The nature of the matter described as specifically as possiblewithout undermining the need for confidentiality is ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(7) Any pending or anticipated litigation or contract negotiation in which the public body isor may become a party Any matters falling within the attorney-client privilege to the extentthat confidentiality is required in order for the attorney to exercise his ethicalduties as a lawyerrdquo The parties to and docket numbers of each item of litigation andor theparties to each contract discussed are __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ andnature of the discussion described as specifically as possible without undermining the need forconfidentiality is ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(8) Any matter involving the employment appointment termination of employment termsand conditions of employment evaluation of the performance promotion or disciplining ofany specific prospective public officer or employee or current public officer or employeeemployed or appointed by the public body unless all individual employees or appointees whoserights could be adversely affected request in writing that such matter or matters be discussed ata public meetingrdquo Subject to the balancing of the publicrsquos interest and the employeersquos privacyrights under South Jersey Publishing Co v New Jersey Expressway Authority 124 NJ 478 theemployee(s) and nature of the discussion described as specifically as possible withoutundermining the need for confidentiality are _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(9) Any deliberation of a public body occurring after a public hearing that may result in theimposition of a specific civil penalty upon the responding party or the suspension or loss of alicense or permit belonging to the responding party as a result of an act of omission forwhich the responding party bears responsibilityrdquo The nature of the matter described asspecifically as possible without undermining the need for confidentiality is______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
WHEREAS the length of the Executive Session is estimated to be ________ minutes after which the publicmeeting of the Board shall (circle one) reconvene and immediately adjourn or reconvene and proceed withbusiness
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Runnemede Board of Education will go into ExecutiveSession for only the above stated reasons
Exhibit Page 2Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 41 of 77
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board hereby declares that its discussion of the aforementionedsubject(s) will be made public at a time when the publicrsquos interest in disclosure is greater than any privacy orgovernmental interest being protected from disclosure For each of the above items the estimated date bywhich such disclosure can be made andor the occurrence that needs to take place before disclosure can bemade are listed below (attach separate sheet if necessary)
Subject of Discussion Estimated Date Necessary Occurrence
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Clerk at the present public meeting shall read aloud enough ofthis resolution so that members of the public in attendance can understand as precisely as possible thenature of the matters that will privately discussed
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Clerk on the next business day following this meeting shallfurnish a copy of this resolution to any member of the public who requests one at the fees allowed byNJSA 471A-1 et seq
_________________________________Board President
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS ATRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTIONAPPROVED BY THE RUNNEMEDE BOARD OF EDUCATION AT ITSPUBLIC MEETING HELD ON ______________________20___
_______________________________________Board Secretary
Exhibit Page 3Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 42 of 77
Exhibit Page 4Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 43 of 77
Exhibit Page 5Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 44 of 77
Exhibit Page 6Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 45 of 77
Exhibit Page 7Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 46 of 77
Exhibit Page 8Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 47 of 77
Exhibit Page 9Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 48 of 77
Subject Records RequestFrom John Paff ltpaffpoboxcomgtDate Sat 07 May 2011 161444 -0400To vcarmodyrunnemedeschoolsorgCC psternasgllawcom
Ms Carmody
Please accept this e-mail as my request for government records inaccordance with the Open Public Records Act (OPRA) and the commonlaw right of access Please respond and send all responsivedocuments to me via e-mail at paffpoboxcom If e-mail is notpossible please fax responses and responsive records to me at908-325-0129 Also I would appreciate it if you wouldacknowledge your receipt of this e-mail
Background
In response to a records request I recently received redactedexecutive session minutes for the following dates July 28 2010(first session) August 26 2010 February 2 2011 February 232011 (two sessions) and March 2 2011 Although Mr Stern providedme with a sheet entitled Documents Exempt From OPRA request thatpurports to explain these redactions I am still unclear as to whythe matter was redacted and whether it was lawfully redacted
First I dont understand references such as NJSA 471A-11(12)(c) The version of OPRA that I have (plus every other oneIve seen) does not have internal numbers within NJSA471A-11 Am I correct that NJSA 471A-11(12)(c) isintended to refer to the exemption for records in connection withcollective negotiations including documents and statements ofstrategy or negotiating position and that NJSA 471A-11(7)is intended to refer to any record within the attorney-clientprivilege This paragraph shall not be construed as exempting fromaccess attorney or consultant bills or invoices except that suchbills or invoices may be redacted to remove any informationprotected by the attorney-client privilege Please advise
Second even if I correctly corresponded the claimed exemptions tothe OPRA statute I have no way of knowing whether the mattersredacted are actually exempt from access When a custodiansuppresses any portion of any requested record NJSA471A-5(g) requires him or her to state the ldquospecific basisrdquo foreach suppressed element Beyond stating the ldquospecific basisrdquo foreach suppressed element he or she is required to ldquoproduce
Records Request
1 of 2 622011 810 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 49 of 77
specific reliable evidence sufficient to meet a statutorilyrecognized basis for confidentialityrdquo Courier News v HunterdonCounty Prosecutorrsquos Office 358 NJ Super 373 382-83 (App Div2003) Further he or she must explain each suppression in amanner that ldquowill enable other parties to assess the applicabilityof the privilege or protectionrdquo Paff v New Jersey Department ofLabor Board of Review 379 NJ Super 346 354-55 (2005)(quoting R 410-2(e))
Records requested
Runnemede Board of Education minutes for the following dates July28 2010 (728 pm session only) August 26 2010 February 22011 February 23 2011 (both sessions) and March 2 2011 Iwould like these minutes redacted as narrowly as possible if atall For each redaction I request a written explanation thatmeets the requirements of the case law cited above
cc Phil Stern
Records Request
2 of 2 622011 810 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 50 of 77
Subject Re Fwd Runnemede Board of Education Open PublicMeetings ActFrom John Paff ltpaffpoboxcomgtDate Mon 09 May 2011 134726 -0400To Nancy Ward ltnwardrunnemedeschoolsorggt
Thank you
On 592011 116 PM Nancy Ward wrote
Mr Paff
The Board has named me Custodian of Records Please direct allfuturecommunication to me The May 10 2011 meeting is theRe-organization ofthe Runnemede Board of Education The agenda is set and is verycomprehensive I intend to defer the letter and any discussionregardingits content to the next regular meeting the date of which willbe setat the re-organization tomorrow night In keeping with thedistrictsmeeting pattern that will be May 25 2011
Nancy BWard EdD
Superintendent of Schools
-----Original Message-----From John PaffSent 572011 42300 PMTo nwardrunnemedeschoolsorgCc vcarmodyrunnemedeschoolsorg psternasgllawcomSubject Fwd Runnemede Board of Education Open Public MeetingsAct
Here is another e-mail in case my original one should have beendirected to Ms Ward and not Ms Carmody
JP
-------- Original Message --------Subject Runnemede Board of Education Open Public Meetings ActDate Sat 07 May 2011 152319 -0400From John Paff
Re Fwd Runnemede Board of Education Open Public Meetings Act
1 of 2 622011 811 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 51 of 77
Reply-To paffpoboxcomTo vcarmodyrunnemedeschoolsorg psternasgllawcom
Ms Carmody and Mr Stern
Attached is a letter that I would like the Board to consider atits May10 2011 meeting Would you please a) acknowledge receipt of theletterand b) distribute it to all the Board members
Note that the last paragraph of the letter indicates that I willfilesuit against the Board if the issues in the letter arentaddressedSo if the Boards agenda for the May 10th meeting is so tightthat myletter cannot be accommodated please advise me of such andprovide ameeting date where my letter will be addressed so that I knowthat I amnot being ignored
Thank you
John Paff ChairmanNew Jersey Libertarian PartysOpen Government Advocacy Project
Re Fwd Runnemede Board of Education Open Public Meetings Act
2 of 2 622011 811 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 52 of 77
Subject OPRA RequestFrom Philip Stern ltpsternasgllawcomgtDate Fri 20 May 2011 161015 -0500To paffpoboxcom ltpaffpoboxcomgtCC Nancy Ward ltnwardrunnemedeschoolsorggt
Mr Paff please find attached to this email a response to your request forbusiness records Please note that in providing you with the attachedrecords the Runnemede Borough Board of Education waives no rightsregarding the attorney-client privilege Do not hesitate to call me if youhave any questions Phil Stern
Philip E SternAdams Stern Gutierrez amp Lattiboudere LLCThe Legal Center1037 Raymond Blvd Suite 710Newark New Jersey 07102(973) 735-2742 (office telephone)(201) 914-2415 (cellular telephone)(973) 735-2743 (office telefax)
May 20 Paff responsepdf
Content-DescriptionMay 20 Paffresponsepdf
Content-Type applicationpdf
Content-Encoding base64
OPRA Request
1 of 1 622011 815 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 53 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 54 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 55 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 56 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 57 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 58 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 59 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 60 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 61 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 62 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 63 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 64 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 65 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 66 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 67 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 68 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 69 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 70 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 71 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 72 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 73 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 74 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 75 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 76 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 77 of 77
- Civil Complaint
- Exhibits
-
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 6 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 7 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 8 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 9 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 10 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 11 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 12 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 13 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 14 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 15 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 16 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 17 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 18 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 19 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 20 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 21 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 22 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 23 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 24 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 25 of 77
Idled officials payout riles Runnemede
By BARBARA S ROTHSCHILD bull Courier-Post Staff bull March 5 2011
RUNNEMEDE mdash Although the school district is paying Business Administrator Kelly PetersBrazelton her full salary to stay home while paying for an interim employee RunnemedeSuperintendent Nancy Ward said it could have cost more not to have a separationagreement
New Jersey is a very litigious state she said In order to avoid litigation which neveris a good thing a separation agreement gives you a certain outcome
Brazelton a Deptford resident and the former business administrator for the SomerdalePublic School District began working for Runnemede schools in August 2008 Her mostrecent contract for July 1 2010 through June 30 is for $99465 plus benefits
But the relationship soured and the district would not comment on specifics citingconfidentiality
A letter from staff members written to Ward and the school board in July 2010 gaveexamples of a hostile work environment that they said was created by the businessadministrator
Brazelton could not be reached Her attorney Joseph Betley of Mount Laurel said hisclient signed the separation agreement in good faith
There was a disagreement between the board and Kelly he said It was resolved andboth sides decided to move on
She disputes any and all allegations regarding a hostile work environment It wassimply Kelly doing her job
The separation agreement and release dated Oct 20 stipulates Brazelton be placed ona paid leave of absence from Sept 23 to April 15 at which time she would irrevocablyresign
School board President Colleen Kurth said it was much easier to go with a separationagreement than pay more legal fees
She compared paying Brazelton to paying a teacher out sick while a substitute fills in
The job just has to go on Kurth said
Interim Business Administrator Valerie Carmody who retired from the same post in EastGreenwich last year was hired Dec 1 at $60 per hour 24 hours maximum per weekHer contract ends June 30
New Jersey School Boards Association spokesman Mike Yaple said such separationagreements are infrequent
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 26 of 77
No school board willingly enters into an agreement like this he insisted But eventhough its not a popular decision its the lesser of two evils
Residents unhappy about the districts handling of the situation include Dan Conard ajournalism student at Rowan University Conard writes a blog where he discusses schooldistrict and municipal matters To comment on this topic he filed Open Public RecordsAct (OPRA) document requests
I just wanted to get it out there so people know what is going on Conard said
Ward said she has no quarrel with the student but believes Brazeltons case is anunusual circumstance
It (the separation agreement) was the most responsible thing the district could havedone she insisted Was it a bitter pill to swallow It took the board (a while) beforethey felt it was something they could do but it makes the most sense
Ward said the part-time arrangement with Carmody is working out well and that as thedistrict improves efficiency it is unlikely another full-time business administrator will behired particularly when Executive County Superintendent Peggy Nicolosi has advisedagainst it
Among the options being considered are another part-time business administrator or ashared-service agreement with another district
Ward said she would have preferred the money being expended in this case be spent oneducational programs and teachers particularly this year
Although voters passed Runnemedes 2010-11 budget while many others were defeatedlast April the district of 853 students in K-8 lost six staffers and streamlined its gifted-and-talented program after state aid was cut
Ward also defended the decision to keep a maintenance techniciansupervisor positioncreated in 2008 noting it has saved at least $145000 each year
Mark Speck of Voorhees earns $50000 in the post Through June 2010 it was filled byDoug McGarry a former building and grounds supervisor in the Somerdale district Heearned $60000 in Runnemede but had more experience than Speck Ward said
Before Brazelton arrived in Runnemede the business administrator also served asmaintenance supervisor Ward said that actually cost the district more because it had topay outside maintenance workers sometimes for faulty work
Many things had been done to the facilities that were not to the boards satisfactionshe said That first year with our own maintenance person we saved $145000 becausewe hired a person who fixed things
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 27 of 77
Speck works with vendors going over bids and quotes and also does minor repairs thatno longer have to be paid for piecemeal Ward said the position is staying in the 2011-2012 budget adopted preliminarily on Wednesday
Hes the guy whos here at 4 am making sure weve got snow plows when we needthem Ward said Hes dirty and sweaty -- and hes excellent
Ward said the budget sent to the county includes a $78 annual tax increase for theowner of a home assessed at the $97800 borough average but does not cut staff orprograms
Kurth hopes to tweak the budget and lower the tax hike before it is introduced to thepublic on March 23 But she agreed the maintenance supervisor will stay
That was an investment on the part of the school district Kurth said
Reach Barbara S Rothschild at (856) 486-2416 or barothschildcamdengannettcom
--Comments
User Imageamonkeycoulddoit wroteThe mayor cant hear you because she doesnt even know how to turn on a computerNot that it was a requirement that the mayor should know how to use one I think theonly requirement is that they have a pulse And she does but barely372011 12406 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imageamonkeycoulddoit wroteTo sickofpolsnj it does seem that snoopysam has some inside information And whenyou say hows that mayors race looking I hope that you dont mean that someone fromthe disfunctional school board is going to run for mayor or council or some other electedposition considering the mess that they made on the school board372011 11832 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imageamonkeycoulddoit wroteIf the school board president had listened to staff when the hostil work enviroment issuestarted then she might not be in this pickle She should have spent the money on thelegal fees because if everything is true about the hostile enviroment then they wouldhave won the lawsuit hands down and not had to pay out anything and gotten their legalfees back Another example of elected officials not capable of doing the job they are inLets hope that some people come out of the woodwork to run for school board peoplewho care about the kids and the taxpayers372011 11309 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imageamonkeycoulddoit wrote
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 28 of 77
The school boad is not as inept as the mayor and council You dont have to be a collegegraduate or or even be able to read or write to get an elected position in runnemedeThe 2 new council members got elected because the are involved in the union andeveryone who supports the union came out to vote And the new mayor must have a lotof friends But now after the few months they have been in office it is clear to see thatthey are not able to handle the job Mayor14 is right that the people of Runnemedevoted because they thought they would get something in return for their vote but itlooks like they were wrong In the upcoming elections for school board and council votefor the person who will do the best job whether you like them or not Dont just vote forsomeone because you are told to372011 10214 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagethemayor14 wrotei am so glad this article was written and it clearly points out how inept the runnemedeboard of education actually is the board of education is not elected based on businessand education talent the elections are nothing more than a popularity contest i dontknow how other towns operate but runnemede boro is a total joke when it come toelections be it school board or general elections i wish everyone would get their headsout of their A$$ and truly investigate the school board canidates that are running forelection VOTE WITH YOUR HEAD NOT WITH YOUR HEART362011 91350 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagesavetheschools wroteSeveral people are running for the board for four open seats I signed a petition todayfor a new woman running Members are not paid If you live in Runnemede shopstewardyou have until Tuesday to get a petition submitted I asked and found out there is only 5people on average at the BOE meetings every month in Runnemede I hope more peoplestart to go I plan on it myself And we all need to go every month not just when weread negative press about our schools That is the only way we would all stay informedand not rely on the young man submitting OPRA requests Our town has always beenabout the kids and it needs to get back that way362011 80936 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser ImageShopsteward wroteWhy did it take one young man sending in OPRA requests to bring all this to lightWhy are you relying upon him to get to the bottom of it You say The other members(except for the one who was just arrested and resigned) are good people and didnothing wrong to the district and that might be true except for the fact that theyallowed that incredible salary and benefits to be given out and even though all kinds ofrumors were flying around it took an outsider with OPRA requests to bring this ghastlypimple to a head Sounds more like none of them are doing their jobs and should be outof office and off the payroll They should all just resign They arent doing the job thatwas assigned to them362011 32559 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Image
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 29 of 77
Shopsteward wroteA crime was committed here It began with a violation of the Publics trust by the peoplewho allowed this contract to be signed in the first place What a jokeHow many moreof these jobs are hidden in the budgets of our Schools There needs to be a thouroughcleaning of all thses tyeps of employees everywhere At the State County Municipaland Scool board level and the appointed Authorities too Everyone screams about theUnions but whenever you hear of some great big abuse it turns out the person wasnteven in the UnionClean up this mess first Mr Christie before yougo after the little guys It will save us all a lot more money362011 101606 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser ImageShopsteward wroteI still dont get itHow is a part time24 hr a week job worth so much This is aprime example of the waste that is giving the public workers a bad nameThe onlyproblem is it isnt some Union personIts management and its the same all over This isjust the tip of the iceberg they scream about the Unions but the real waste is in jobs likethis oneNo way this job or the thousands of others like it should be paid so well99465 PLUS BENEFITS incrediblethere should be a lawandthe person gets a pension based on that bloated salarytooThere should be other people losing their jobs not for theseperation aggreement but for letting this evenhappen352011 101125 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagethesplits wroteI guess this is Runnemedes version of a shared service352011 73450 PM
User Imagethesplits wroteLooks like its the same old Runnemede and I thought we voted for change Mayor352011 73202 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagesavetheschools wroteFrom what I understand and I live in town the board went into this separationagreement because the BA would have had a potential lawsuit and it would have costthe school district and tax payers a ton of money Much more than they are spendingnow And yes it is one school board member who was apparently corrupt Just one Theyoung man who was mentioned in the article has been OPRA requesting items and willget to the bottom of this situation with the former BA and the certain board memberBut that is just one person The other members (except for the one who was justarrested and resigned) are good people and did nothing wrong to the district Thisformer BA and her friend who was hired as the maint supervisor have been a hot topicfor a few years Ask the employees they were awful and needed to go It is awful thatthis money was not spent on our children It was a trainwreck from the beginning and ifI recall correctly when the hiring took place only one of the members voted no and that
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 30 of 77
was the local high school teacher metioned in another post Runnemede schools arefantastic and maybe the new people running for election will get some answers andmake some changes And maybe the BOE member who was mentioned by employees asbeing the reason why there could be a possible lawsuit should just resign I understandadmin make good money but they also need to be accountable for their actions and ifthe BA made a hostile environment and was supported by one BOE member both shouldbe gonenot just the BA352011 33207 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagecookmom wroteWhere is Gov Christies veto power352011 30321 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagecookmom wroteThis all happened with a local police officer and a FOP member and local high schoolteacher and member of the NJEA on the board The Runnemede Board is looking alotlike the DRPA and was this group picked by the new Mayor352011 30042 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagesickofpolsnj wroteThe real truth is the Board of Education member and Brazelton and the unethicalsituation that THEY created The questionable contracts and underhanded deals There isa certain Board Member that hopes that this ends here well it doesnt There is not aTeacher or employee in Runnemede Schools that would defend Brazelton same goes forSomerdale And many are willing to bring out MANY of the things that Brazelton did todestroy the district The ENTIRE Runnemede School Community is thrilled that Brazeltonis gone Snoopysam is clearly one of two people Kelly or the Board Member shouldwe name names Hows that Mayors race looking352011 114254 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser ImageShopsteward wrote$99465 plus benefits How much does she pay for her share of those benefitsor are they free to her Her replacement only works 24 hours a week are we being toldthat she got that much money for a part time job What is the matter with theidiots that hired her to begin withNo one should get that kind of money for a part timeThat is an awful lot of money for that kind of job We should not be surprised at all Thiskind of thing is everywhere in Camden CountyIts the NORMAL way of doingbusiness352011 113922 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagelookfar111 wroteYep same old story hire someone for $98000 when 10 equally qualified people woulddo it for 60k with a 20 year top out at 75 k Then a sweetheart adios gift And the cherry
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 31 of 77
on top Another tax increase for the people God I hate what the democrat machinehave done to this once great state352011 111649 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser ImageSnoopysam wrotesickofpolsnj you must be on ot those employees that Brazelton held accountable forHER actions You are right there is so much more to this story and when the real truthscome out there will be some emplopyeesadministratorsboard members hanging theirheads in shame Talk about wasting taxpayer dollars take a look at some of the lazyincompetent employees that Brazelton had to deal withand their HUGE mistakes thathad to be corrected which cost the taxpayers thousands upon thousands of dollars352011 94250 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagesickofpolsnj wroteYou are exactly correct A teacher would never get a sweatheart deal like this I wonderwhich Board Member it was that was mentioned in that letter Did you read the blog thatthis all came out on it has way more details than this articlehttpdansviewrunnemedewordpresscom352011 92934 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagesickofpolsnj wroteOnly thing is Runnemede never had these issues Somerdale had the same EXACT issueswith Brazelton Administrators arent allowed to comment however talk to the teachersand employees off record they will tell you all about Kelly352011 92726 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagesickofpolsnj wroteThere is so much more to this story I hope the CP will run a follow up 1 Look into therealtionship and hiring surrounding Doug the maintenance supervisor 2 Check intoBrazeltons past employment Somerdale Schools 3 Brazelton is rumored to be hired atthe completion of the settlement in Deptford 4 Look into unethical practices between aBoard Member and Brazelton 5 And what about the other Board member that wasrecently charged with a serious crime352011 92315 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imageicallbullschit wroteOnce again the government tries to pin their mistakes on an individual when they screwup royally What the paper fails to report is the other side Maybe years and years ofmismanagement and patronage were uncovered and it became a hostile environmentwhen people got called on their actions and the same old routine was stopped Maybethe school board realized it would be cheaper to pay one than to pay many for theirmistakes Maybe the school board was willing to pay in order to keep their dirty littlesecrets covered up Maybe the resident should look deeper into the actions of the schoolboard and the rest of the administration Maybe I am wrong but it seems that the board
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 32 of 77
got called on some issues and now they are attacking one individual to cover theirtracks They seem to be acting like the GREAT WIZARD OF OZ Pay no attention to theidiots behind the curtain we are the all powerful and all knowing school board Pull backthe curtain people because there are people behind there that are faking their waythrough and going to wind up costing the district millions Just saying352011 85642 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagecookmom wroteSchool board President Colleen Kurth said it was much easier to go with a separationagreement than pay more legal fees She compared paying Brazelton to paying ateacher out sick while a substitute fills in The job just has to go on Kurth said I amconfused A teacher out SICK is NOT the same as a HOSTILE work enviorment How cana medical condition be compared to a person being accused of a hostile workenviorment A teacher would be REQUIRED to use their sick days~ since this is beingcompared to an illness ~was Brazelton REQUIRED to give up her sickvacation pay orwas that part of the dealWas she also paid for those days Wouldnt we all love to becollecting a salary from two towns As now she is being paid by Runnemde AND acurrent SCHOOL district where she is currently employed THIS is the waste in ourSchool districts352011 83552 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imageneocon wroteShe is part of the Protected Classes All you need to know is that she is better thanyou so just keep moveing along Nothing to see here352011 81912 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report Abuse
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 33 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 34 of 77
New Jersey Libertarian PartyOpen Government Advocacy Project
John Paff Chairman
PO Box 5424
Somerset NJ 08875-5424
Phone 732-873-1251 - Fax 908-325-0129
Email lpsmcpoboxcom
May 7 2011
Hon Colleen Kurth President and members of the
Runnemede Board of Education
505 W Third Ave
Runnemede NJ 08078 (via e-mail to vcarmodyrunnemedeschoolsorg )
Dear President Kurth and Board members
I write both individually and on behalf the New Jersey Libertarian Partys Open
Government Advocacy Project to comment on 1) the manner in which the Board of Education
goes into nonpublic (ie executive or closed) session and 2) the level of detail contained within
the Boardrsquos executive session minutes
Issue 1 Executive Session resolutions
As you are aware the Senator Byron M Baer Open Public Meetings Act requires public
bodies such as the Runnemede Board of Education to publicly pass a resolution before
excluding the public from a meeting The statute that requires the resolution states
NJSA 104-13mdashClosed meetings resolution to conduct
No public body shall exclude the public from any meeting to discuss any
matter described in subsection 7 b (104-12) until the public body shall
first adopt a resolution at a meeting to which the public shall be admitted
a Stating the general nature of the subject to be discussed and
b Stating as precisely as possible the time when and the circumstances
under which the discussion conducted in closed session of the public body
can be disclosed to the public
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 35 of 77
2
By way of a recent records request I received resolutions which purport to authorize
executive sessions intended to be held by the Board of Education on July 28 2010 (2 sessions)
August 20 2010 February 2 1011 February 23 2011 (2 sessions) and March 2 2011 Those
resolutions which are virtually identical to each other state
Executive Session to discuss student matters personnel contractual and
legal matters [time and a statement as to whether action will be
taken]
[identity of maker of motion etc]
Resolved that pursuant to Section 8 of the Public Meetings Act the public
shall be excluded from that portion of the meeting involving the discussion
of personnel legal and contractual matters Further resolved that
discussion of such subject matters discussed in Executive Session can be
disclosed to public upon official action if any at the conclusion of the
executive session or at a public session at some later date
I dont think that this form of resolution satisfies NJSA 104-13 because it gives the
public no real sense of what is being privately discussed1 To paraphrase the highest court of of
another state a body which only announces ldquolegal mattersrdquo or ldquopersonnel negotiationsrdquo for
going into executive session has said nothing It might has well have stated to the audience
ldquoLadies and gentlemen we are going into executive sessionrdquo and stopped there Hinds County
Board of Supervisors v Common Cause of Mississippi 551 So2d 107 114 (MS 1989)
Of course there can be no dispute that the Board of Education often has legitimate
reasons to meet in nonpublic session Among these reasons is the need to prevent the adverse
parties in litigation or contract negotiations from gaining an unfair advantage and to allow
members of the governing body to debate and deliberate personnel matters without public
scrutiny or participation But the need to discuss matters privately should not prevent the
public from being informed as precisely as possible of the topics that are being privately
discussed
For example suppose that Runnemede Board is being sued by a Mr Jones who was
injured after he slipped and fell on what he claims to be negligently maintained school
property Since the lawsuit is already a public record there is no public purpose served by
vaguely describing a private discussion of it as ldquostudent matters personnel contractual and
legal mattersrdquo Rather the resolution should at the very least describe the private discussion as
1 In January 2007 when I most recently litigated this issue Middlesex County Superior Court Judge Alexander P
Waugh issued a written decision in which he agreed with other court decisions that closed session resolutions
should contain as much information as is consistent with full public knowledge without doing any harm to the
public interest Judge Waughs decision and other case documents are on the Web at
httpogtfarchiveorgOGTFMonroeBOEWebreadypdf
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 36 of 77
3
ldquoDiscussion of slip and fall negligence suit Jones v Runnemede Board Docket No CAM-L-
012345-11rdquo This way the public has a very good sense of what the Boardrsquos private discussion is
about while the ability of the Board to develop its lawsuit strategy is not undermined
Using the same example suppose that Jonesrsquo attorney sent the Boardrsquos attorney an offer
to fully settle the lawsuit upon the Boardrsquos payment of $20000 While the Board would
obviously need to discuss how to respond to the offer in private lest Jones or his attorney
would be in the audience witnessing the discussion there is no reason why the public cannot be
informed in the NJSA 104-13 resolution that the Board will meet in private to discuss ldquoa
settlement offer received from the Plaintiff in the slip and fall negligence suit known as Jones v
Runnemede Board Docket No CAM-L-012345-11 in which the Plaintiff offers to settle the suit
in exchange for the Board paying him $20000rdquo While it may initially seem that this would
provide ldquotoo muchrdquo information to the public this concern disappears once it is realized that
the sole purpose of the exception2 that allows litigation matters to be discussed in private is to
keep the adverse party to the litigation in the dark regarding the Boardrsquos position3 Since in this
example the adverse party (ie Jones) already knows that he offered to settle the lawsuit for
$20000 there is no legitimate reason why the public should not also know of the tendered
settlement offer
As another example suppose that a personnel matter such as whether or not a Mrs
Smith a public works employee should be disciplined because of repeatedly arriving late to
work is to be discussed in closed session In such a case the amount of detail set forth in the
NJSA 104-13 resolution should correspond to the amount of detail that the Board and its
attorney predict will be publicly disclosed in the closed meetingrsquos minutes when those minutes
are made public
The standard that the Board is to use when determining how much information about a
personnel matter is to be disclosed in the closed sessionrsquos minutes is set forth in South Jersey
Publishing Company Inc v New Jersey Expressway Authority 124 NJ 478 (1991) That
standard is that a) the public needs information if it is properly fulfill its role of evaluating the
wisdom of governmental action or a decision not to act b) that New Jerseys strong public
policy requires that a public bodyrsquos actions and decisions to not act be disclosed in the bodys
closed meeting minutes along with sufficient facts and information to permit the public to
understand and appraise the reasonableness of the bodys determination and c) to the extent a
cognizable privacy interest may be compromised by the required disclosure the extent of
disclosure may be modified through redactions of the minutes provided the public interest in
disclosure is not subverted
2 NJSA104-12(b)(7) is to prevent adverse parties to litigation and contracts from learning the details of the
public bodyrsquos negotiation tactics and litigation strategy3 See the discussion in Paff v Washington Township Docket No MER-L-2205-07 and Nevin v Asbury Park City
Board 2005 WL 2847974 (App Div November 1 2005) which are on-line at
httpogtfarchiveorgOGTFWashingtonpdf (Nevin begins at page 44 of the PDF file at the link)
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 37 of 77
4
Thus regardless of whether the Board disciplines Ms Smith or chooses to not impose
discipline due to her lateness the outcome should be recorded in the closed meeting minutes
The question of whether that entry in the minutes should be redacted before the minutes are
made public requires a balancing of Ms Smithrsquos interest in keeping the disciplinary matter
private against the publicrsquos interest in effectively monitoring the Board If the Board with
counselrsquos advice determines after balancing these interests that the outcome will be published
unredacted in the closed sessionrsquos minutes (ie if the minutes will disclose to the public eg that
ldquoMs Smith was suspended for three days on account of her habitual latenessrdquo) then the exact
nature of the matter (ie that ldquothe Board will discuss disciplining Ms Smith for excessive
latenessrdquo) should be set forth in the closed meetingrsquos NJSA 104-13 resolution Inversely if the
Board determines that Ms Smithrsquos privacy interest exceeds the publicrsquos right to know then less
information (eg ldquothe Board will discuss disciplining an employee for excessive latenessrdquo)
should be set forth in the closed meetingrsquos NJSA 104-13 resolution
In other words if the officer or employee being discussed doesnt have a privacy interest
sufficient to withstand a citizens request for the executive session minutes why should not the
public know the topic of the executive session prior to it occurring
Irsquove attached as Exhibit pages 1 -3 is a model resolution that I would like the Board to
use in the future
Issue 2 Executive Session minutes
Attached as Exhibit Page 4 as an example are the Boardrsquos July 28 2010 executive session
minutes It is troubling that a meeting that lasted over an hour is being summed up in a single
sentence ldquoMr Phil Stern addressed the Board of Education about personnel issuesrdquo These
minutes are not ldquoreasonably comprehensiblerdquo as required by NJSA 104-14
The purpose of closed meeting minutes is not merely to inform the public of whatoccurred during the private session but also to create a record for the Board membersthemselves A Board member who is newly elected in 2012 should be able by referringsolely to the minutes to figure out what issues the Board addressed during any previouslyheld closed meeting This hypothetical Board member after reading the July 28 2010closed minutes could not possibly figure out which employees or officials Mr Stern wastalking about
Better practice would be to record closed minutes that are much morecomprehensive but to redact that material that must be shielded from public view Forexample the minutes could have said
Mr Stern addressed the Board of Education about the habitualtardiness of 2nd grade teacher Mary Doe and her propensity to eatlibrary paste and scream hysterically during fire drills Herecommended that she be sent for psychiatric evaluation
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 38 of 77
5
Of course if a member of the public requested these hypothetical minutes the Boardmay need to redact them in order to protect privacy interests The point however is thatregardless of whether unredacted closed meeting minutes are ever released to the publicthey should contain sufficient details so that the Board members themselves can monthsor years later know what was discussed
Attached as Exhibit pages 5 ndash 9 is an order recently entered in Schmidt et al v City of
Gloucester City et al Docket No CAM-L-1287-11 As you can see paraA(3) supports my position
that the Boardrsquos minutes are not ldquoreasonably comprehensiblerdquo as required by law
Conclusion
Since some public bodies do not take my requests for Meetings Act compliance seriously
I regret having to inform the Board that I will sue for declaratory and injunctive relief in
accordance with NJSA 104-16 unless I receive assurances from the Boardmdashwithin a few days
after its May 10 2011 meetingmdashthat it will work in good faith to improve the amount of
information in both its closed session resolutions and minutes If the Boardrsquos agenda is already
set for the May 10 2011 meeting please at least acknowledge this letter and let me know the
date of the meeting at which it will be considered
Thank you very much for your attention to this matter I look forward to hearing from
you
Sincerely
John Paff
cc Philip E Stern Esq w enc (via e-mail to psternasgllawcom )
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 39 of 77
RUNNEMEDE BOARD OF EDUCATIONRESOLUTION NO ___________
AUTHORIZING EXECUTIVE SESSION
WHEREAS while the Sen Byron M Baer Open Public Meetings Act (NJSA 104-6 et seq) requires allmeetings of the Runnemede Board of Education to be held in public NJSA 104-12(b) sets forth nine (9)types of matters that may lawfully be discussed in ldquoExecutive Sessionrdquo ie without the public beingpermitted to attend and
WHEREAS the Runnemede Board of Education has determined that _____ (insert number) issues arepermitted by NJSA 104-12(b) to be discussed without the public in attendance shall be discussed duringan Executive Session to be held on _________________________ 20____ at _______ PM and
WHEREAS the nine (9) exceptions to public meetings set forth in NJSA 104-12(b) are listed below andnext to each exception is a box within which the number of issues to be privately discussed that fall withinthat exception shall be written and after each exception is a space where additional information that willdisclose as much information about the discussion as possible without undermining the purpose of theexception shall be written
ldquo(1) Any matter which by express provision of Federal law State statute or rule of courtshall be rendered confidential or excluded from public discussionrdquo The legal citation to theprovision(s) at issue is__________________________ and the nature of the matter described asspecifically as possible without undermining the need for confidentiality is _______________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(2) Any matter in which the release of information would impair a right to receive fundsfrom the federal governmentrdquo The nature of the matter described as specifically as possiblewithout undermining the need for confidentiality is _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(3) Any material the disclosure of which constitutes an unwarranted invasion of individualprivacy such as any records data reports recommendations or other personal material ofany educational training social service medical health custodial child protectionrehabilitation legal defense welfare housing relocation insurance and similar program orinstitution operated by a public body pertaining to any specific individual admitted to orserved by such institution or program including but not limited to information relative tothe individuals personal and family circumstances and any material pertaining toadmission discharge treatment progress or condition of any individual unless theindividual concerned (or in the case of a minor or incompetent his guardian) shall requestin writing that the same be disclosed publiclyrdquo The nature of the matter described asspecifically as possible without undermining the need for confidentiality is______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(4) Any collective bargaining agreement or the terms and conditions of which are proposedfor inclusion in any collective bargaining agreement including the negotiation of terms andconditions with employees or representatives of employees of the public bodyrdquo The collectivebargaining contract(s) discussed are between the Board and ____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Exhibit Page 1Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 40 of 77
ldquo(5) Any matter involving the purchase lease or acquisition of real property with publicfunds the setting of bank rates or investment of public funds where it could adversely affectthe public interest if discussion of such matters were disclosedrdquo The nature of the matterdescribed as specifically as possible without undermining the need for confidentiality is____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(6) Any tactics and techniques utilized in protecting the safety and property of the publicprovided that their disclosure could impair such protection Any investigations of violationsor possible violations of the lawrdquo The nature of the matter described as specifically as possiblewithout undermining the need for confidentiality is ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(7) Any pending or anticipated litigation or contract negotiation in which the public body isor may become a party Any matters falling within the attorney-client privilege to the extentthat confidentiality is required in order for the attorney to exercise his ethicalduties as a lawyerrdquo The parties to and docket numbers of each item of litigation andor theparties to each contract discussed are __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ andnature of the discussion described as specifically as possible without undermining the need forconfidentiality is ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(8) Any matter involving the employment appointment termination of employment termsand conditions of employment evaluation of the performance promotion or disciplining ofany specific prospective public officer or employee or current public officer or employeeemployed or appointed by the public body unless all individual employees or appointees whoserights could be adversely affected request in writing that such matter or matters be discussed ata public meetingrdquo Subject to the balancing of the publicrsquos interest and the employeersquos privacyrights under South Jersey Publishing Co v New Jersey Expressway Authority 124 NJ 478 theemployee(s) and nature of the discussion described as specifically as possible withoutundermining the need for confidentiality are _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(9) Any deliberation of a public body occurring after a public hearing that may result in theimposition of a specific civil penalty upon the responding party or the suspension or loss of alicense or permit belonging to the responding party as a result of an act of omission forwhich the responding party bears responsibilityrdquo The nature of the matter described asspecifically as possible without undermining the need for confidentiality is______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
WHEREAS the length of the Executive Session is estimated to be ________ minutes after which the publicmeeting of the Board shall (circle one) reconvene and immediately adjourn or reconvene and proceed withbusiness
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Runnemede Board of Education will go into ExecutiveSession for only the above stated reasons
Exhibit Page 2Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 41 of 77
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board hereby declares that its discussion of the aforementionedsubject(s) will be made public at a time when the publicrsquos interest in disclosure is greater than any privacy orgovernmental interest being protected from disclosure For each of the above items the estimated date bywhich such disclosure can be made andor the occurrence that needs to take place before disclosure can bemade are listed below (attach separate sheet if necessary)
Subject of Discussion Estimated Date Necessary Occurrence
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Clerk at the present public meeting shall read aloud enough ofthis resolution so that members of the public in attendance can understand as precisely as possible thenature of the matters that will privately discussed
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Clerk on the next business day following this meeting shallfurnish a copy of this resolution to any member of the public who requests one at the fees allowed byNJSA 471A-1 et seq
_________________________________Board President
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS ATRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTIONAPPROVED BY THE RUNNEMEDE BOARD OF EDUCATION AT ITSPUBLIC MEETING HELD ON ______________________20___
_______________________________________Board Secretary
Exhibit Page 3Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 42 of 77
Exhibit Page 4Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 43 of 77
Exhibit Page 5Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 44 of 77
Exhibit Page 6Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 45 of 77
Exhibit Page 7Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 46 of 77
Exhibit Page 8Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 47 of 77
Exhibit Page 9Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 48 of 77
Subject Records RequestFrom John Paff ltpaffpoboxcomgtDate Sat 07 May 2011 161444 -0400To vcarmodyrunnemedeschoolsorgCC psternasgllawcom
Ms Carmody
Please accept this e-mail as my request for government records inaccordance with the Open Public Records Act (OPRA) and the commonlaw right of access Please respond and send all responsivedocuments to me via e-mail at paffpoboxcom If e-mail is notpossible please fax responses and responsive records to me at908-325-0129 Also I would appreciate it if you wouldacknowledge your receipt of this e-mail
Background
In response to a records request I recently received redactedexecutive session minutes for the following dates July 28 2010(first session) August 26 2010 February 2 2011 February 232011 (two sessions) and March 2 2011 Although Mr Stern providedme with a sheet entitled Documents Exempt From OPRA request thatpurports to explain these redactions I am still unclear as to whythe matter was redacted and whether it was lawfully redacted
First I dont understand references such as NJSA 471A-11(12)(c) The version of OPRA that I have (plus every other oneIve seen) does not have internal numbers within NJSA471A-11 Am I correct that NJSA 471A-11(12)(c) isintended to refer to the exemption for records in connection withcollective negotiations including documents and statements ofstrategy or negotiating position and that NJSA 471A-11(7)is intended to refer to any record within the attorney-clientprivilege This paragraph shall not be construed as exempting fromaccess attorney or consultant bills or invoices except that suchbills or invoices may be redacted to remove any informationprotected by the attorney-client privilege Please advise
Second even if I correctly corresponded the claimed exemptions tothe OPRA statute I have no way of knowing whether the mattersredacted are actually exempt from access When a custodiansuppresses any portion of any requested record NJSA471A-5(g) requires him or her to state the ldquospecific basisrdquo foreach suppressed element Beyond stating the ldquospecific basisrdquo foreach suppressed element he or she is required to ldquoproduce
Records Request
1 of 2 622011 810 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 49 of 77
specific reliable evidence sufficient to meet a statutorilyrecognized basis for confidentialityrdquo Courier News v HunterdonCounty Prosecutorrsquos Office 358 NJ Super 373 382-83 (App Div2003) Further he or she must explain each suppression in amanner that ldquowill enable other parties to assess the applicabilityof the privilege or protectionrdquo Paff v New Jersey Department ofLabor Board of Review 379 NJ Super 346 354-55 (2005)(quoting R 410-2(e))
Records requested
Runnemede Board of Education minutes for the following dates July28 2010 (728 pm session only) August 26 2010 February 22011 February 23 2011 (both sessions) and March 2 2011 Iwould like these minutes redacted as narrowly as possible if atall For each redaction I request a written explanation thatmeets the requirements of the case law cited above
cc Phil Stern
Records Request
2 of 2 622011 810 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 50 of 77
Subject Re Fwd Runnemede Board of Education Open PublicMeetings ActFrom John Paff ltpaffpoboxcomgtDate Mon 09 May 2011 134726 -0400To Nancy Ward ltnwardrunnemedeschoolsorggt
Thank you
On 592011 116 PM Nancy Ward wrote
Mr Paff
The Board has named me Custodian of Records Please direct allfuturecommunication to me The May 10 2011 meeting is theRe-organization ofthe Runnemede Board of Education The agenda is set and is verycomprehensive I intend to defer the letter and any discussionregardingits content to the next regular meeting the date of which willbe setat the re-organization tomorrow night In keeping with thedistrictsmeeting pattern that will be May 25 2011
Nancy BWard EdD
Superintendent of Schools
-----Original Message-----From John PaffSent 572011 42300 PMTo nwardrunnemedeschoolsorgCc vcarmodyrunnemedeschoolsorg psternasgllawcomSubject Fwd Runnemede Board of Education Open Public MeetingsAct
Here is another e-mail in case my original one should have beendirected to Ms Ward and not Ms Carmody
JP
-------- Original Message --------Subject Runnemede Board of Education Open Public Meetings ActDate Sat 07 May 2011 152319 -0400From John Paff
Re Fwd Runnemede Board of Education Open Public Meetings Act
1 of 2 622011 811 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 51 of 77
Reply-To paffpoboxcomTo vcarmodyrunnemedeschoolsorg psternasgllawcom
Ms Carmody and Mr Stern
Attached is a letter that I would like the Board to consider atits May10 2011 meeting Would you please a) acknowledge receipt of theletterand b) distribute it to all the Board members
Note that the last paragraph of the letter indicates that I willfilesuit against the Board if the issues in the letter arentaddressedSo if the Boards agenda for the May 10th meeting is so tightthat myletter cannot be accommodated please advise me of such andprovide ameeting date where my letter will be addressed so that I knowthat I amnot being ignored
Thank you
John Paff ChairmanNew Jersey Libertarian PartysOpen Government Advocacy Project
Re Fwd Runnemede Board of Education Open Public Meetings Act
2 of 2 622011 811 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 52 of 77
Subject OPRA RequestFrom Philip Stern ltpsternasgllawcomgtDate Fri 20 May 2011 161015 -0500To paffpoboxcom ltpaffpoboxcomgtCC Nancy Ward ltnwardrunnemedeschoolsorggt
Mr Paff please find attached to this email a response to your request forbusiness records Please note that in providing you with the attachedrecords the Runnemede Borough Board of Education waives no rightsregarding the attorney-client privilege Do not hesitate to call me if youhave any questions Phil Stern
Philip E SternAdams Stern Gutierrez amp Lattiboudere LLCThe Legal Center1037 Raymond Blvd Suite 710Newark New Jersey 07102(973) 735-2742 (office telephone)(201) 914-2415 (cellular telephone)(973) 735-2743 (office telefax)
May 20 Paff responsepdf
Content-DescriptionMay 20 Paffresponsepdf
Content-Type applicationpdf
Content-Encoding base64
OPRA Request
1 of 1 622011 815 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 53 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 54 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 55 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 56 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 57 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 58 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 59 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 60 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 61 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 62 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 63 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 64 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 65 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 66 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 67 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 68 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 69 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 70 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 71 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 72 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 73 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 74 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 75 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 76 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 77 of 77
- Civil Complaint
- Exhibits
-
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 7 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 8 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 9 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 10 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 11 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 12 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 13 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 14 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 15 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 16 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 17 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 18 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 19 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 20 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 21 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 22 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 23 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 24 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 25 of 77
Idled officials payout riles Runnemede
By BARBARA S ROTHSCHILD bull Courier-Post Staff bull March 5 2011
RUNNEMEDE mdash Although the school district is paying Business Administrator Kelly PetersBrazelton her full salary to stay home while paying for an interim employee RunnemedeSuperintendent Nancy Ward said it could have cost more not to have a separationagreement
New Jersey is a very litigious state she said In order to avoid litigation which neveris a good thing a separation agreement gives you a certain outcome
Brazelton a Deptford resident and the former business administrator for the SomerdalePublic School District began working for Runnemede schools in August 2008 Her mostrecent contract for July 1 2010 through June 30 is for $99465 plus benefits
But the relationship soured and the district would not comment on specifics citingconfidentiality
A letter from staff members written to Ward and the school board in July 2010 gaveexamples of a hostile work environment that they said was created by the businessadministrator
Brazelton could not be reached Her attorney Joseph Betley of Mount Laurel said hisclient signed the separation agreement in good faith
There was a disagreement between the board and Kelly he said It was resolved andboth sides decided to move on
She disputes any and all allegations regarding a hostile work environment It wassimply Kelly doing her job
The separation agreement and release dated Oct 20 stipulates Brazelton be placed ona paid leave of absence from Sept 23 to April 15 at which time she would irrevocablyresign
School board President Colleen Kurth said it was much easier to go with a separationagreement than pay more legal fees
She compared paying Brazelton to paying a teacher out sick while a substitute fills in
The job just has to go on Kurth said
Interim Business Administrator Valerie Carmody who retired from the same post in EastGreenwich last year was hired Dec 1 at $60 per hour 24 hours maximum per weekHer contract ends June 30
New Jersey School Boards Association spokesman Mike Yaple said such separationagreements are infrequent
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 26 of 77
No school board willingly enters into an agreement like this he insisted But eventhough its not a popular decision its the lesser of two evils
Residents unhappy about the districts handling of the situation include Dan Conard ajournalism student at Rowan University Conard writes a blog where he discusses schooldistrict and municipal matters To comment on this topic he filed Open Public RecordsAct (OPRA) document requests
I just wanted to get it out there so people know what is going on Conard said
Ward said she has no quarrel with the student but believes Brazeltons case is anunusual circumstance
It (the separation agreement) was the most responsible thing the district could havedone she insisted Was it a bitter pill to swallow It took the board (a while) beforethey felt it was something they could do but it makes the most sense
Ward said the part-time arrangement with Carmody is working out well and that as thedistrict improves efficiency it is unlikely another full-time business administrator will behired particularly when Executive County Superintendent Peggy Nicolosi has advisedagainst it
Among the options being considered are another part-time business administrator or ashared-service agreement with another district
Ward said she would have preferred the money being expended in this case be spent oneducational programs and teachers particularly this year
Although voters passed Runnemedes 2010-11 budget while many others were defeatedlast April the district of 853 students in K-8 lost six staffers and streamlined its gifted-and-talented program after state aid was cut
Ward also defended the decision to keep a maintenance techniciansupervisor positioncreated in 2008 noting it has saved at least $145000 each year
Mark Speck of Voorhees earns $50000 in the post Through June 2010 it was filled byDoug McGarry a former building and grounds supervisor in the Somerdale district Heearned $60000 in Runnemede but had more experience than Speck Ward said
Before Brazelton arrived in Runnemede the business administrator also served asmaintenance supervisor Ward said that actually cost the district more because it had topay outside maintenance workers sometimes for faulty work
Many things had been done to the facilities that were not to the boards satisfactionshe said That first year with our own maintenance person we saved $145000 becausewe hired a person who fixed things
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 27 of 77
Speck works with vendors going over bids and quotes and also does minor repairs thatno longer have to be paid for piecemeal Ward said the position is staying in the 2011-2012 budget adopted preliminarily on Wednesday
Hes the guy whos here at 4 am making sure weve got snow plows when we needthem Ward said Hes dirty and sweaty -- and hes excellent
Ward said the budget sent to the county includes a $78 annual tax increase for theowner of a home assessed at the $97800 borough average but does not cut staff orprograms
Kurth hopes to tweak the budget and lower the tax hike before it is introduced to thepublic on March 23 But she agreed the maintenance supervisor will stay
That was an investment on the part of the school district Kurth said
Reach Barbara S Rothschild at (856) 486-2416 or barothschildcamdengannettcom
--Comments
User Imageamonkeycoulddoit wroteThe mayor cant hear you because she doesnt even know how to turn on a computerNot that it was a requirement that the mayor should know how to use one I think theonly requirement is that they have a pulse And she does but barely372011 12406 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imageamonkeycoulddoit wroteTo sickofpolsnj it does seem that snoopysam has some inside information And whenyou say hows that mayors race looking I hope that you dont mean that someone fromthe disfunctional school board is going to run for mayor or council or some other electedposition considering the mess that they made on the school board372011 11832 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imageamonkeycoulddoit wroteIf the school board president had listened to staff when the hostil work enviroment issuestarted then she might not be in this pickle She should have spent the money on thelegal fees because if everything is true about the hostile enviroment then they wouldhave won the lawsuit hands down and not had to pay out anything and gotten their legalfees back Another example of elected officials not capable of doing the job they are inLets hope that some people come out of the woodwork to run for school board peoplewho care about the kids and the taxpayers372011 11309 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imageamonkeycoulddoit wrote
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 28 of 77
The school boad is not as inept as the mayor and council You dont have to be a collegegraduate or or even be able to read or write to get an elected position in runnemedeThe 2 new council members got elected because the are involved in the union andeveryone who supports the union came out to vote And the new mayor must have a lotof friends But now after the few months they have been in office it is clear to see thatthey are not able to handle the job Mayor14 is right that the people of Runnemedevoted because they thought they would get something in return for their vote but itlooks like they were wrong In the upcoming elections for school board and council votefor the person who will do the best job whether you like them or not Dont just vote forsomeone because you are told to372011 10214 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagethemayor14 wrotei am so glad this article was written and it clearly points out how inept the runnemedeboard of education actually is the board of education is not elected based on businessand education talent the elections are nothing more than a popularity contest i dontknow how other towns operate but runnemede boro is a total joke when it come toelections be it school board or general elections i wish everyone would get their headsout of their A$$ and truly investigate the school board canidates that are running forelection VOTE WITH YOUR HEAD NOT WITH YOUR HEART362011 91350 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagesavetheschools wroteSeveral people are running for the board for four open seats I signed a petition todayfor a new woman running Members are not paid If you live in Runnemede shopstewardyou have until Tuesday to get a petition submitted I asked and found out there is only 5people on average at the BOE meetings every month in Runnemede I hope more peoplestart to go I plan on it myself And we all need to go every month not just when weread negative press about our schools That is the only way we would all stay informedand not rely on the young man submitting OPRA requests Our town has always beenabout the kids and it needs to get back that way362011 80936 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser ImageShopsteward wroteWhy did it take one young man sending in OPRA requests to bring all this to lightWhy are you relying upon him to get to the bottom of it You say The other members(except for the one who was just arrested and resigned) are good people and didnothing wrong to the district and that might be true except for the fact that theyallowed that incredible salary and benefits to be given out and even though all kinds ofrumors were flying around it took an outsider with OPRA requests to bring this ghastlypimple to a head Sounds more like none of them are doing their jobs and should be outof office and off the payroll They should all just resign They arent doing the job thatwas assigned to them362011 32559 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Image
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 29 of 77
Shopsteward wroteA crime was committed here It began with a violation of the Publics trust by the peoplewho allowed this contract to be signed in the first place What a jokeHow many moreof these jobs are hidden in the budgets of our Schools There needs to be a thouroughcleaning of all thses tyeps of employees everywhere At the State County Municipaland Scool board level and the appointed Authorities too Everyone screams about theUnions but whenever you hear of some great big abuse it turns out the person wasnteven in the UnionClean up this mess first Mr Christie before yougo after the little guys It will save us all a lot more money362011 101606 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser ImageShopsteward wroteI still dont get itHow is a part time24 hr a week job worth so much This is aprime example of the waste that is giving the public workers a bad nameThe onlyproblem is it isnt some Union personIts management and its the same all over This isjust the tip of the iceberg they scream about the Unions but the real waste is in jobs likethis oneNo way this job or the thousands of others like it should be paid so well99465 PLUS BENEFITS incrediblethere should be a lawandthe person gets a pension based on that bloated salarytooThere should be other people losing their jobs not for theseperation aggreement but for letting this evenhappen352011 101125 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagethesplits wroteI guess this is Runnemedes version of a shared service352011 73450 PM
User Imagethesplits wroteLooks like its the same old Runnemede and I thought we voted for change Mayor352011 73202 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagesavetheschools wroteFrom what I understand and I live in town the board went into this separationagreement because the BA would have had a potential lawsuit and it would have costthe school district and tax payers a ton of money Much more than they are spendingnow And yes it is one school board member who was apparently corrupt Just one Theyoung man who was mentioned in the article has been OPRA requesting items and willget to the bottom of this situation with the former BA and the certain board memberBut that is just one person The other members (except for the one who was justarrested and resigned) are good people and did nothing wrong to the district Thisformer BA and her friend who was hired as the maint supervisor have been a hot topicfor a few years Ask the employees they were awful and needed to go It is awful thatthis money was not spent on our children It was a trainwreck from the beginning and ifI recall correctly when the hiring took place only one of the members voted no and that
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 30 of 77
was the local high school teacher metioned in another post Runnemede schools arefantastic and maybe the new people running for election will get some answers andmake some changes And maybe the BOE member who was mentioned by employees asbeing the reason why there could be a possible lawsuit should just resign I understandadmin make good money but they also need to be accountable for their actions and ifthe BA made a hostile environment and was supported by one BOE member both shouldbe gonenot just the BA352011 33207 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagecookmom wroteWhere is Gov Christies veto power352011 30321 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagecookmom wroteThis all happened with a local police officer and a FOP member and local high schoolteacher and member of the NJEA on the board The Runnemede Board is looking alotlike the DRPA and was this group picked by the new Mayor352011 30042 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagesickofpolsnj wroteThe real truth is the Board of Education member and Brazelton and the unethicalsituation that THEY created The questionable contracts and underhanded deals There isa certain Board Member that hopes that this ends here well it doesnt There is not aTeacher or employee in Runnemede Schools that would defend Brazelton same goes forSomerdale And many are willing to bring out MANY of the things that Brazelton did todestroy the district The ENTIRE Runnemede School Community is thrilled that Brazeltonis gone Snoopysam is clearly one of two people Kelly or the Board Member shouldwe name names Hows that Mayors race looking352011 114254 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser ImageShopsteward wrote$99465 plus benefits How much does she pay for her share of those benefitsor are they free to her Her replacement only works 24 hours a week are we being toldthat she got that much money for a part time job What is the matter with theidiots that hired her to begin withNo one should get that kind of money for a part timeThat is an awful lot of money for that kind of job We should not be surprised at all Thiskind of thing is everywhere in Camden CountyIts the NORMAL way of doingbusiness352011 113922 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagelookfar111 wroteYep same old story hire someone for $98000 when 10 equally qualified people woulddo it for 60k with a 20 year top out at 75 k Then a sweetheart adios gift And the cherry
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 31 of 77
on top Another tax increase for the people God I hate what the democrat machinehave done to this once great state352011 111649 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser ImageSnoopysam wrotesickofpolsnj you must be on ot those employees that Brazelton held accountable forHER actions You are right there is so much more to this story and when the real truthscome out there will be some emplopyeesadministratorsboard members hanging theirheads in shame Talk about wasting taxpayer dollars take a look at some of the lazyincompetent employees that Brazelton had to deal withand their HUGE mistakes thathad to be corrected which cost the taxpayers thousands upon thousands of dollars352011 94250 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagesickofpolsnj wroteYou are exactly correct A teacher would never get a sweatheart deal like this I wonderwhich Board Member it was that was mentioned in that letter Did you read the blog thatthis all came out on it has way more details than this articlehttpdansviewrunnemedewordpresscom352011 92934 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagesickofpolsnj wroteOnly thing is Runnemede never had these issues Somerdale had the same EXACT issueswith Brazelton Administrators arent allowed to comment however talk to the teachersand employees off record they will tell you all about Kelly352011 92726 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagesickofpolsnj wroteThere is so much more to this story I hope the CP will run a follow up 1 Look into therealtionship and hiring surrounding Doug the maintenance supervisor 2 Check intoBrazeltons past employment Somerdale Schools 3 Brazelton is rumored to be hired atthe completion of the settlement in Deptford 4 Look into unethical practices between aBoard Member and Brazelton 5 And what about the other Board member that wasrecently charged with a serious crime352011 92315 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imageicallbullschit wroteOnce again the government tries to pin their mistakes on an individual when they screwup royally What the paper fails to report is the other side Maybe years and years ofmismanagement and patronage were uncovered and it became a hostile environmentwhen people got called on their actions and the same old routine was stopped Maybethe school board realized it would be cheaper to pay one than to pay many for theirmistakes Maybe the school board was willing to pay in order to keep their dirty littlesecrets covered up Maybe the resident should look deeper into the actions of the schoolboard and the rest of the administration Maybe I am wrong but it seems that the board
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 32 of 77
got called on some issues and now they are attacking one individual to cover theirtracks They seem to be acting like the GREAT WIZARD OF OZ Pay no attention to theidiots behind the curtain we are the all powerful and all knowing school board Pull backthe curtain people because there are people behind there that are faking their waythrough and going to wind up costing the district millions Just saying352011 85642 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagecookmom wroteSchool board President Colleen Kurth said it was much easier to go with a separationagreement than pay more legal fees She compared paying Brazelton to paying ateacher out sick while a substitute fills in The job just has to go on Kurth said I amconfused A teacher out SICK is NOT the same as a HOSTILE work enviorment How cana medical condition be compared to a person being accused of a hostile workenviorment A teacher would be REQUIRED to use their sick days~ since this is beingcompared to an illness ~was Brazelton REQUIRED to give up her sickvacation pay orwas that part of the dealWas she also paid for those days Wouldnt we all love to becollecting a salary from two towns As now she is being paid by Runnemde AND acurrent SCHOOL district where she is currently employed THIS is the waste in ourSchool districts352011 83552 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imageneocon wroteShe is part of the Protected Classes All you need to know is that she is better thanyou so just keep moveing along Nothing to see here352011 81912 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report Abuse
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 33 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 34 of 77
New Jersey Libertarian PartyOpen Government Advocacy Project
John Paff Chairman
PO Box 5424
Somerset NJ 08875-5424
Phone 732-873-1251 - Fax 908-325-0129
Email lpsmcpoboxcom
May 7 2011
Hon Colleen Kurth President and members of the
Runnemede Board of Education
505 W Third Ave
Runnemede NJ 08078 (via e-mail to vcarmodyrunnemedeschoolsorg )
Dear President Kurth and Board members
I write both individually and on behalf the New Jersey Libertarian Partys Open
Government Advocacy Project to comment on 1) the manner in which the Board of Education
goes into nonpublic (ie executive or closed) session and 2) the level of detail contained within
the Boardrsquos executive session minutes
Issue 1 Executive Session resolutions
As you are aware the Senator Byron M Baer Open Public Meetings Act requires public
bodies such as the Runnemede Board of Education to publicly pass a resolution before
excluding the public from a meeting The statute that requires the resolution states
NJSA 104-13mdashClosed meetings resolution to conduct
No public body shall exclude the public from any meeting to discuss any
matter described in subsection 7 b (104-12) until the public body shall
first adopt a resolution at a meeting to which the public shall be admitted
a Stating the general nature of the subject to be discussed and
b Stating as precisely as possible the time when and the circumstances
under which the discussion conducted in closed session of the public body
can be disclosed to the public
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 35 of 77
2
By way of a recent records request I received resolutions which purport to authorize
executive sessions intended to be held by the Board of Education on July 28 2010 (2 sessions)
August 20 2010 February 2 1011 February 23 2011 (2 sessions) and March 2 2011 Those
resolutions which are virtually identical to each other state
Executive Session to discuss student matters personnel contractual and
legal matters [time and a statement as to whether action will be
taken]
[identity of maker of motion etc]
Resolved that pursuant to Section 8 of the Public Meetings Act the public
shall be excluded from that portion of the meeting involving the discussion
of personnel legal and contractual matters Further resolved that
discussion of such subject matters discussed in Executive Session can be
disclosed to public upon official action if any at the conclusion of the
executive session or at a public session at some later date
I dont think that this form of resolution satisfies NJSA 104-13 because it gives the
public no real sense of what is being privately discussed1 To paraphrase the highest court of of
another state a body which only announces ldquolegal mattersrdquo or ldquopersonnel negotiationsrdquo for
going into executive session has said nothing It might has well have stated to the audience
ldquoLadies and gentlemen we are going into executive sessionrdquo and stopped there Hinds County
Board of Supervisors v Common Cause of Mississippi 551 So2d 107 114 (MS 1989)
Of course there can be no dispute that the Board of Education often has legitimate
reasons to meet in nonpublic session Among these reasons is the need to prevent the adverse
parties in litigation or contract negotiations from gaining an unfair advantage and to allow
members of the governing body to debate and deliberate personnel matters without public
scrutiny or participation But the need to discuss matters privately should not prevent the
public from being informed as precisely as possible of the topics that are being privately
discussed
For example suppose that Runnemede Board is being sued by a Mr Jones who was
injured after he slipped and fell on what he claims to be negligently maintained school
property Since the lawsuit is already a public record there is no public purpose served by
vaguely describing a private discussion of it as ldquostudent matters personnel contractual and
legal mattersrdquo Rather the resolution should at the very least describe the private discussion as
1 In January 2007 when I most recently litigated this issue Middlesex County Superior Court Judge Alexander P
Waugh issued a written decision in which he agreed with other court decisions that closed session resolutions
should contain as much information as is consistent with full public knowledge without doing any harm to the
public interest Judge Waughs decision and other case documents are on the Web at
httpogtfarchiveorgOGTFMonroeBOEWebreadypdf
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 36 of 77
3
ldquoDiscussion of slip and fall negligence suit Jones v Runnemede Board Docket No CAM-L-
012345-11rdquo This way the public has a very good sense of what the Boardrsquos private discussion is
about while the ability of the Board to develop its lawsuit strategy is not undermined
Using the same example suppose that Jonesrsquo attorney sent the Boardrsquos attorney an offer
to fully settle the lawsuit upon the Boardrsquos payment of $20000 While the Board would
obviously need to discuss how to respond to the offer in private lest Jones or his attorney
would be in the audience witnessing the discussion there is no reason why the public cannot be
informed in the NJSA 104-13 resolution that the Board will meet in private to discuss ldquoa
settlement offer received from the Plaintiff in the slip and fall negligence suit known as Jones v
Runnemede Board Docket No CAM-L-012345-11 in which the Plaintiff offers to settle the suit
in exchange for the Board paying him $20000rdquo While it may initially seem that this would
provide ldquotoo muchrdquo information to the public this concern disappears once it is realized that
the sole purpose of the exception2 that allows litigation matters to be discussed in private is to
keep the adverse party to the litigation in the dark regarding the Boardrsquos position3 Since in this
example the adverse party (ie Jones) already knows that he offered to settle the lawsuit for
$20000 there is no legitimate reason why the public should not also know of the tendered
settlement offer
As another example suppose that a personnel matter such as whether or not a Mrs
Smith a public works employee should be disciplined because of repeatedly arriving late to
work is to be discussed in closed session In such a case the amount of detail set forth in the
NJSA 104-13 resolution should correspond to the amount of detail that the Board and its
attorney predict will be publicly disclosed in the closed meetingrsquos minutes when those minutes
are made public
The standard that the Board is to use when determining how much information about a
personnel matter is to be disclosed in the closed sessionrsquos minutes is set forth in South Jersey
Publishing Company Inc v New Jersey Expressway Authority 124 NJ 478 (1991) That
standard is that a) the public needs information if it is properly fulfill its role of evaluating the
wisdom of governmental action or a decision not to act b) that New Jerseys strong public
policy requires that a public bodyrsquos actions and decisions to not act be disclosed in the bodys
closed meeting minutes along with sufficient facts and information to permit the public to
understand and appraise the reasonableness of the bodys determination and c) to the extent a
cognizable privacy interest may be compromised by the required disclosure the extent of
disclosure may be modified through redactions of the minutes provided the public interest in
disclosure is not subverted
2 NJSA104-12(b)(7) is to prevent adverse parties to litigation and contracts from learning the details of the
public bodyrsquos negotiation tactics and litigation strategy3 See the discussion in Paff v Washington Township Docket No MER-L-2205-07 and Nevin v Asbury Park City
Board 2005 WL 2847974 (App Div November 1 2005) which are on-line at
httpogtfarchiveorgOGTFWashingtonpdf (Nevin begins at page 44 of the PDF file at the link)
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 37 of 77
4
Thus regardless of whether the Board disciplines Ms Smith or chooses to not impose
discipline due to her lateness the outcome should be recorded in the closed meeting minutes
The question of whether that entry in the minutes should be redacted before the minutes are
made public requires a balancing of Ms Smithrsquos interest in keeping the disciplinary matter
private against the publicrsquos interest in effectively monitoring the Board If the Board with
counselrsquos advice determines after balancing these interests that the outcome will be published
unredacted in the closed sessionrsquos minutes (ie if the minutes will disclose to the public eg that
ldquoMs Smith was suspended for three days on account of her habitual latenessrdquo) then the exact
nature of the matter (ie that ldquothe Board will discuss disciplining Ms Smith for excessive
latenessrdquo) should be set forth in the closed meetingrsquos NJSA 104-13 resolution Inversely if the
Board determines that Ms Smithrsquos privacy interest exceeds the publicrsquos right to know then less
information (eg ldquothe Board will discuss disciplining an employee for excessive latenessrdquo)
should be set forth in the closed meetingrsquos NJSA 104-13 resolution
In other words if the officer or employee being discussed doesnt have a privacy interest
sufficient to withstand a citizens request for the executive session minutes why should not the
public know the topic of the executive session prior to it occurring
Irsquove attached as Exhibit pages 1 -3 is a model resolution that I would like the Board to
use in the future
Issue 2 Executive Session minutes
Attached as Exhibit Page 4 as an example are the Boardrsquos July 28 2010 executive session
minutes It is troubling that a meeting that lasted over an hour is being summed up in a single
sentence ldquoMr Phil Stern addressed the Board of Education about personnel issuesrdquo These
minutes are not ldquoreasonably comprehensiblerdquo as required by NJSA 104-14
The purpose of closed meeting minutes is not merely to inform the public of whatoccurred during the private session but also to create a record for the Board membersthemselves A Board member who is newly elected in 2012 should be able by referringsolely to the minutes to figure out what issues the Board addressed during any previouslyheld closed meeting This hypothetical Board member after reading the July 28 2010closed minutes could not possibly figure out which employees or officials Mr Stern wastalking about
Better practice would be to record closed minutes that are much morecomprehensive but to redact that material that must be shielded from public view Forexample the minutes could have said
Mr Stern addressed the Board of Education about the habitualtardiness of 2nd grade teacher Mary Doe and her propensity to eatlibrary paste and scream hysterically during fire drills Herecommended that she be sent for psychiatric evaluation
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 38 of 77
5
Of course if a member of the public requested these hypothetical minutes the Boardmay need to redact them in order to protect privacy interests The point however is thatregardless of whether unredacted closed meeting minutes are ever released to the publicthey should contain sufficient details so that the Board members themselves can monthsor years later know what was discussed
Attached as Exhibit pages 5 ndash 9 is an order recently entered in Schmidt et al v City of
Gloucester City et al Docket No CAM-L-1287-11 As you can see paraA(3) supports my position
that the Boardrsquos minutes are not ldquoreasonably comprehensiblerdquo as required by law
Conclusion
Since some public bodies do not take my requests for Meetings Act compliance seriously
I regret having to inform the Board that I will sue for declaratory and injunctive relief in
accordance with NJSA 104-16 unless I receive assurances from the Boardmdashwithin a few days
after its May 10 2011 meetingmdashthat it will work in good faith to improve the amount of
information in both its closed session resolutions and minutes If the Boardrsquos agenda is already
set for the May 10 2011 meeting please at least acknowledge this letter and let me know the
date of the meeting at which it will be considered
Thank you very much for your attention to this matter I look forward to hearing from
you
Sincerely
John Paff
cc Philip E Stern Esq w enc (via e-mail to psternasgllawcom )
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 39 of 77
RUNNEMEDE BOARD OF EDUCATIONRESOLUTION NO ___________
AUTHORIZING EXECUTIVE SESSION
WHEREAS while the Sen Byron M Baer Open Public Meetings Act (NJSA 104-6 et seq) requires allmeetings of the Runnemede Board of Education to be held in public NJSA 104-12(b) sets forth nine (9)types of matters that may lawfully be discussed in ldquoExecutive Sessionrdquo ie without the public beingpermitted to attend and
WHEREAS the Runnemede Board of Education has determined that _____ (insert number) issues arepermitted by NJSA 104-12(b) to be discussed without the public in attendance shall be discussed duringan Executive Session to be held on _________________________ 20____ at _______ PM and
WHEREAS the nine (9) exceptions to public meetings set forth in NJSA 104-12(b) are listed below andnext to each exception is a box within which the number of issues to be privately discussed that fall withinthat exception shall be written and after each exception is a space where additional information that willdisclose as much information about the discussion as possible without undermining the purpose of theexception shall be written
ldquo(1) Any matter which by express provision of Federal law State statute or rule of courtshall be rendered confidential or excluded from public discussionrdquo The legal citation to theprovision(s) at issue is__________________________ and the nature of the matter described asspecifically as possible without undermining the need for confidentiality is _______________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(2) Any matter in which the release of information would impair a right to receive fundsfrom the federal governmentrdquo The nature of the matter described as specifically as possiblewithout undermining the need for confidentiality is _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(3) Any material the disclosure of which constitutes an unwarranted invasion of individualprivacy such as any records data reports recommendations or other personal material ofany educational training social service medical health custodial child protectionrehabilitation legal defense welfare housing relocation insurance and similar program orinstitution operated by a public body pertaining to any specific individual admitted to orserved by such institution or program including but not limited to information relative tothe individuals personal and family circumstances and any material pertaining toadmission discharge treatment progress or condition of any individual unless theindividual concerned (or in the case of a minor or incompetent his guardian) shall requestin writing that the same be disclosed publiclyrdquo The nature of the matter described asspecifically as possible without undermining the need for confidentiality is______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(4) Any collective bargaining agreement or the terms and conditions of which are proposedfor inclusion in any collective bargaining agreement including the negotiation of terms andconditions with employees or representatives of employees of the public bodyrdquo The collectivebargaining contract(s) discussed are between the Board and ____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Exhibit Page 1Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 40 of 77
ldquo(5) Any matter involving the purchase lease or acquisition of real property with publicfunds the setting of bank rates or investment of public funds where it could adversely affectthe public interest if discussion of such matters were disclosedrdquo The nature of the matterdescribed as specifically as possible without undermining the need for confidentiality is____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(6) Any tactics and techniques utilized in protecting the safety and property of the publicprovided that their disclosure could impair such protection Any investigations of violationsor possible violations of the lawrdquo The nature of the matter described as specifically as possiblewithout undermining the need for confidentiality is ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(7) Any pending or anticipated litigation or contract negotiation in which the public body isor may become a party Any matters falling within the attorney-client privilege to the extentthat confidentiality is required in order for the attorney to exercise his ethicalduties as a lawyerrdquo The parties to and docket numbers of each item of litigation andor theparties to each contract discussed are __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ andnature of the discussion described as specifically as possible without undermining the need forconfidentiality is ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(8) Any matter involving the employment appointment termination of employment termsand conditions of employment evaluation of the performance promotion or disciplining ofany specific prospective public officer or employee or current public officer or employeeemployed or appointed by the public body unless all individual employees or appointees whoserights could be adversely affected request in writing that such matter or matters be discussed ata public meetingrdquo Subject to the balancing of the publicrsquos interest and the employeersquos privacyrights under South Jersey Publishing Co v New Jersey Expressway Authority 124 NJ 478 theemployee(s) and nature of the discussion described as specifically as possible withoutundermining the need for confidentiality are _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(9) Any deliberation of a public body occurring after a public hearing that may result in theimposition of a specific civil penalty upon the responding party or the suspension or loss of alicense or permit belonging to the responding party as a result of an act of omission forwhich the responding party bears responsibilityrdquo The nature of the matter described asspecifically as possible without undermining the need for confidentiality is______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
WHEREAS the length of the Executive Session is estimated to be ________ minutes after which the publicmeeting of the Board shall (circle one) reconvene and immediately adjourn or reconvene and proceed withbusiness
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Runnemede Board of Education will go into ExecutiveSession for only the above stated reasons
Exhibit Page 2Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 41 of 77
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board hereby declares that its discussion of the aforementionedsubject(s) will be made public at a time when the publicrsquos interest in disclosure is greater than any privacy orgovernmental interest being protected from disclosure For each of the above items the estimated date bywhich such disclosure can be made andor the occurrence that needs to take place before disclosure can bemade are listed below (attach separate sheet if necessary)
Subject of Discussion Estimated Date Necessary Occurrence
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Clerk at the present public meeting shall read aloud enough ofthis resolution so that members of the public in attendance can understand as precisely as possible thenature of the matters that will privately discussed
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Clerk on the next business day following this meeting shallfurnish a copy of this resolution to any member of the public who requests one at the fees allowed byNJSA 471A-1 et seq
_________________________________Board President
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS ATRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTIONAPPROVED BY THE RUNNEMEDE BOARD OF EDUCATION AT ITSPUBLIC MEETING HELD ON ______________________20___
_______________________________________Board Secretary
Exhibit Page 3Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 42 of 77
Exhibit Page 4Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 43 of 77
Exhibit Page 5Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 44 of 77
Exhibit Page 6Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 45 of 77
Exhibit Page 7Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 46 of 77
Exhibit Page 8Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 47 of 77
Exhibit Page 9Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 48 of 77
Subject Records RequestFrom John Paff ltpaffpoboxcomgtDate Sat 07 May 2011 161444 -0400To vcarmodyrunnemedeschoolsorgCC psternasgllawcom
Ms Carmody
Please accept this e-mail as my request for government records inaccordance with the Open Public Records Act (OPRA) and the commonlaw right of access Please respond and send all responsivedocuments to me via e-mail at paffpoboxcom If e-mail is notpossible please fax responses and responsive records to me at908-325-0129 Also I would appreciate it if you wouldacknowledge your receipt of this e-mail
Background
In response to a records request I recently received redactedexecutive session minutes for the following dates July 28 2010(first session) August 26 2010 February 2 2011 February 232011 (two sessions) and March 2 2011 Although Mr Stern providedme with a sheet entitled Documents Exempt From OPRA request thatpurports to explain these redactions I am still unclear as to whythe matter was redacted and whether it was lawfully redacted
First I dont understand references such as NJSA 471A-11(12)(c) The version of OPRA that I have (plus every other oneIve seen) does not have internal numbers within NJSA471A-11 Am I correct that NJSA 471A-11(12)(c) isintended to refer to the exemption for records in connection withcollective negotiations including documents and statements ofstrategy or negotiating position and that NJSA 471A-11(7)is intended to refer to any record within the attorney-clientprivilege This paragraph shall not be construed as exempting fromaccess attorney or consultant bills or invoices except that suchbills or invoices may be redacted to remove any informationprotected by the attorney-client privilege Please advise
Second even if I correctly corresponded the claimed exemptions tothe OPRA statute I have no way of knowing whether the mattersredacted are actually exempt from access When a custodiansuppresses any portion of any requested record NJSA471A-5(g) requires him or her to state the ldquospecific basisrdquo foreach suppressed element Beyond stating the ldquospecific basisrdquo foreach suppressed element he or she is required to ldquoproduce
Records Request
1 of 2 622011 810 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 49 of 77
specific reliable evidence sufficient to meet a statutorilyrecognized basis for confidentialityrdquo Courier News v HunterdonCounty Prosecutorrsquos Office 358 NJ Super 373 382-83 (App Div2003) Further he or she must explain each suppression in amanner that ldquowill enable other parties to assess the applicabilityof the privilege or protectionrdquo Paff v New Jersey Department ofLabor Board of Review 379 NJ Super 346 354-55 (2005)(quoting R 410-2(e))
Records requested
Runnemede Board of Education minutes for the following dates July28 2010 (728 pm session only) August 26 2010 February 22011 February 23 2011 (both sessions) and March 2 2011 Iwould like these minutes redacted as narrowly as possible if atall For each redaction I request a written explanation thatmeets the requirements of the case law cited above
cc Phil Stern
Records Request
2 of 2 622011 810 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 50 of 77
Subject Re Fwd Runnemede Board of Education Open PublicMeetings ActFrom John Paff ltpaffpoboxcomgtDate Mon 09 May 2011 134726 -0400To Nancy Ward ltnwardrunnemedeschoolsorggt
Thank you
On 592011 116 PM Nancy Ward wrote
Mr Paff
The Board has named me Custodian of Records Please direct allfuturecommunication to me The May 10 2011 meeting is theRe-organization ofthe Runnemede Board of Education The agenda is set and is verycomprehensive I intend to defer the letter and any discussionregardingits content to the next regular meeting the date of which willbe setat the re-organization tomorrow night In keeping with thedistrictsmeeting pattern that will be May 25 2011
Nancy BWard EdD
Superintendent of Schools
-----Original Message-----From John PaffSent 572011 42300 PMTo nwardrunnemedeschoolsorgCc vcarmodyrunnemedeschoolsorg psternasgllawcomSubject Fwd Runnemede Board of Education Open Public MeetingsAct
Here is another e-mail in case my original one should have beendirected to Ms Ward and not Ms Carmody
JP
-------- Original Message --------Subject Runnemede Board of Education Open Public Meetings ActDate Sat 07 May 2011 152319 -0400From John Paff
Re Fwd Runnemede Board of Education Open Public Meetings Act
1 of 2 622011 811 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 51 of 77
Reply-To paffpoboxcomTo vcarmodyrunnemedeschoolsorg psternasgllawcom
Ms Carmody and Mr Stern
Attached is a letter that I would like the Board to consider atits May10 2011 meeting Would you please a) acknowledge receipt of theletterand b) distribute it to all the Board members
Note that the last paragraph of the letter indicates that I willfilesuit against the Board if the issues in the letter arentaddressedSo if the Boards agenda for the May 10th meeting is so tightthat myletter cannot be accommodated please advise me of such andprovide ameeting date where my letter will be addressed so that I knowthat I amnot being ignored
Thank you
John Paff ChairmanNew Jersey Libertarian PartysOpen Government Advocacy Project
Re Fwd Runnemede Board of Education Open Public Meetings Act
2 of 2 622011 811 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 52 of 77
Subject OPRA RequestFrom Philip Stern ltpsternasgllawcomgtDate Fri 20 May 2011 161015 -0500To paffpoboxcom ltpaffpoboxcomgtCC Nancy Ward ltnwardrunnemedeschoolsorggt
Mr Paff please find attached to this email a response to your request forbusiness records Please note that in providing you with the attachedrecords the Runnemede Borough Board of Education waives no rightsregarding the attorney-client privilege Do not hesitate to call me if youhave any questions Phil Stern
Philip E SternAdams Stern Gutierrez amp Lattiboudere LLCThe Legal Center1037 Raymond Blvd Suite 710Newark New Jersey 07102(973) 735-2742 (office telephone)(201) 914-2415 (cellular telephone)(973) 735-2743 (office telefax)
May 20 Paff responsepdf
Content-DescriptionMay 20 Paffresponsepdf
Content-Type applicationpdf
Content-Encoding base64
OPRA Request
1 of 1 622011 815 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 53 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 54 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 55 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 56 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 57 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 58 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 59 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 60 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 61 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 62 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 63 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 64 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 65 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 66 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 67 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 68 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 69 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 70 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 71 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 72 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 73 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 74 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 75 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 76 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 77 of 77
- Civil Complaint
- Exhibits
-
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 8 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 9 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 10 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 11 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 12 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 13 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 14 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 15 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 16 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 17 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 18 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 19 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 20 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 21 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 22 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 23 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 24 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 25 of 77
Idled officials payout riles Runnemede
By BARBARA S ROTHSCHILD bull Courier-Post Staff bull March 5 2011
RUNNEMEDE mdash Although the school district is paying Business Administrator Kelly PetersBrazelton her full salary to stay home while paying for an interim employee RunnemedeSuperintendent Nancy Ward said it could have cost more not to have a separationagreement
New Jersey is a very litigious state she said In order to avoid litigation which neveris a good thing a separation agreement gives you a certain outcome
Brazelton a Deptford resident and the former business administrator for the SomerdalePublic School District began working for Runnemede schools in August 2008 Her mostrecent contract for July 1 2010 through June 30 is for $99465 plus benefits
But the relationship soured and the district would not comment on specifics citingconfidentiality
A letter from staff members written to Ward and the school board in July 2010 gaveexamples of a hostile work environment that they said was created by the businessadministrator
Brazelton could not be reached Her attorney Joseph Betley of Mount Laurel said hisclient signed the separation agreement in good faith
There was a disagreement between the board and Kelly he said It was resolved andboth sides decided to move on
She disputes any and all allegations regarding a hostile work environment It wassimply Kelly doing her job
The separation agreement and release dated Oct 20 stipulates Brazelton be placed ona paid leave of absence from Sept 23 to April 15 at which time she would irrevocablyresign
School board President Colleen Kurth said it was much easier to go with a separationagreement than pay more legal fees
She compared paying Brazelton to paying a teacher out sick while a substitute fills in
The job just has to go on Kurth said
Interim Business Administrator Valerie Carmody who retired from the same post in EastGreenwich last year was hired Dec 1 at $60 per hour 24 hours maximum per weekHer contract ends June 30
New Jersey School Boards Association spokesman Mike Yaple said such separationagreements are infrequent
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 26 of 77
No school board willingly enters into an agreement like this he insisted But eventhough its not a popular decision its the lesser of two evils
Residents unhappy about the districts handling of the situation include Dan Conard ajournalism student at Rowan University Conard writes a blog where he discusses schooldistrict and municipal matters To comment on this topic he filed Open Public RecordsAct (OPRA) document requests
I just wanted to get it out there so people know what is going on Conard said
Ward said she has no quarrel with the student but believes Brazeltons case is anunusual circumstance
It (the separation agreement) was the most responsible thing the district could havedone she insisted Was it a bitter pill to swallow It took the board (a while) beforethey felt it was something they could do but it makes the most sense
Ward said the part-time arrangement with Carmody is working out well and that as thedistrict improves efficiency it is unlikely another full-time business administrator will behired particularly when Executive County Superintendent Peggy Nicolosi has advisedagainst it
Among the options being considered are another part-time business administrator or ashared-service agreement with another district
Ward said she would have preferred the money being expended in this case be spent oneducational programs and teachers particularly this year
Although voters passed Runnemedes 2010-11 budget while many others were defeatedlast April the district of 853 students in K-8 lost six staffers and streamlined its gifted-and-talented program after state aid was cut
Ward also defended the decision to keep a maintenance techniciansupervisor positioncreated in 2008 noting it has saved at least $145000 each year
Mark Speck of Voorhees earns $50000 in the post Through June 2010 it was filled byDoug McGarry a former building and grounds supervisor in the Somerdale district Heearned $60000 in Runnemede but had more experience than Speck Ward said
Before Brazelton arrived in Runnemede the business administrator also served asmaintenance supervisor Ward said that actually cost the district more because it had topay outside maintenance workers sometimes for faulty work
Many things had been done to the facilities that were not to the boards satisfactionshe said That first year with our own maintenance person we saved $145000 becausewe hired a person who fixed things
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 27 of 77
Speck works with vendors going over bids and quotes and also does minor repairs thatno longer have to be paid for piecemeal Ward said the position is staying in the 2011-2012 budget adopted preliminarily on Wednesday
Hes the guy whos here at 4 am making sure weve got snow plows when we needthem Ward said Hes dirty and sweaty -- and hes excellent
Ward said the budget sent to the county includes a $78 annual tax increase for theowner of a home assessed at the $97800 borough average but does not cut staff orprograms
Kurth hopes to tweak the budget and lower the tax hike before it is introduced to thepublic on March 23 But she agreed the maintenance supervisor will stay
That was an investment on the part of the school district Kurth said
Reach Barbara S Rothschild at (856) 486-2416 or barothschildcamdengannettcom
--Comments
User Imageamonkeycoulddoit wroteThe mayor cant hear you because she doesnt even know how to turn on a computerNot that it was a requirement that the mayor should know how to use one I think theonly requirement is that they have a pulse And she does but barely372011 12406 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imageamonkeycoulddoit wroteTo sickofpolsnj it does seem that snoopysam has some inside information And whenyou say hows that mayors race looking I hope that you dont mean that someone fromthe disfunctional school board is going to run for mayor or council or some other electedposition considering the mess that they made on the school board372011 11832 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imageamonkeycoulddoit wroteIf the school board president had listened to staff when the hostil work enviroment issuestarted then she might not be in this pickle She should have spent the money on thelegal fees because if everything is true about the hostile enviroment then they wouldhave won the lawsuit hands down and not had to pay out anything and gotten their legalfees back Another example of elected officials not capable of doing the job they are inLets hope that some people come out of the woodwork to run for school board peoplewho care about the kids and the taxpayers372011 11309 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imageamonkeycoulddoit wrote
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 28 of 77
The school boad is not as inept as the mayor and council You dont have to be a collegegraduate or or even be able to read or write to get an elected position in runnemedeThe 2 new council members got elected because the are involved in the union andeveryone who supports the union came out to vote And the new mayor must have a lotof friends But now after the few months they have been in office it is clear to see thatthey are not able to handle the job Mayor14 is right that the people of Runnemedevoted because they thought they would get something in return for their vote but itlooks like they were wrong In the upcoming elections for school board and council votefor the person who will do the best job whether you like them or not Dont just vote forsomeone because you are told to372011 10214 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagethemayor14 wrotei am so glad this article was written and it clearly points out how inept the runnemedeboard of education actually is the board of education is not elected based on businessand education talent the elections are nothing more than a popularity contest i dontknow how other towns operate but runnemede boro is a total joke when it come toelections be it school board or general elections i wish everyone would get their headsout of their A$$ and truly investigate the school board canidates that are running forelection VOTE WITH YOUR HEAD NOT WITH YOUR HEART362011 91350 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagesavetheschools wroteSeveral people are running for the board for four open seats I signed a petition todayfor a new woman running Members are not paid If you live in Runnemede shopstewardyou have until Tuesday to get a petition submitted I asked and found out there is only 5people on average at the BOE meetings every month in Runnemede I hope more peoplestart to go I plan on it myself And we all need to go every month not just when weread negative press about our schools That is the only way we would all stay informedand not rely on the young man submitting OPRA requests Our town has always beenabout the kids and it needs to get back that way362011 80936 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser ImageShopsteward wroteWhy did it take one young man sending in OPRA requests to bring all this to lightWhy are you relying upon him to get to the bottom of it You say The other members(except for the one who was just arrested and resigned) are good people and didnothing wrong to the district and that might be true except for the fact that theyallowed that incredible salary and benefits to be given out and even though all kinds ofrumors were flying around it took an outsider with OPRA requests to bring this ghastlypimple to a head Sounds more like none of them are doing their jobs and should be outof office and off the payroll They should all just resign They arent doing the job thatwas assigned to them362011 32559 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Image
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 29 of 77
Shopsteward wroteA crime was committed here It began with a violation of the Publics trust by the peoplewho allowed this contract to be signed in the first place What a jokeHow many moreof these jobs are hidden in the budgets of our Schools There needs to be a thouroughcleaning of all thses tyeps of employees everywhere At the State County Municipaland Scool board level and the appointed Authorities too Everyone screams about theUnions but whenever you hear of some great big abuse it turns out the person wasnteven in the UnionClean up this mess first Mr Christie before yougo after the little guys It will save us all a lot more money362011 101606 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser ImageShopsteward wroteI still dont get itHow is a part time24 hr a week job worth so much This is aprime example of the waste that is giving the public workers a bad nameThe onlyproblem is it isnt some Union personIts management and its the same all over This isjust the tip of the iceberg they scream about the Unions but the real waste is in jobs likethis oneNo way this job or the thousands of others like it should be paid so well99465 PLUS BENEFITS incrediblethere should be a lawandthe person gets a pension based on that bloated salarytooThere should be other people losing their jobs not for theseperation aggreement but for letting this evenhappen352011 101125 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagethesplits wroteI guess this is Runnemedes version of a shared service352011 73450 PM
User Imagethesplits wroteLooks like its the same old Runnemede and I thought we voted for change Mayor352011 73202 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagesavetheschools wroteFrom what I understand and I live in town the board went into this separationagreement because the BA would have had a potential lawsuit and it would have costthe school district and tax payers a ton of money Much more than they are spendingnow And yes it is one school board member who was apparently corrupt Just one Theyoung man who was mentioned in the article has been OPRA requesting items and willget to the bottom of this situation with the former BA and the certain board memberBut that is just one person The other members (except for the one who was justarrested and resigned) are good people and did nothing wrong to the district Thisformer BA and her friend who was hired as the maint supervisor have been a hot topicfor a few years Ask the employees they were awful and needed to go It is awful thatthis money was not spent on our children It was a trainwreck from the beginning and ifI recall correctly when the hiring took place only one of the members voted no and that
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 30 of 77
was the local high school teacher metioned in another post Runnemede schools arefantastic and maybe the new people running for election will get some answers andmake some changes And maybe the BOE member who was mentioned by employees asbeing the reason why there could be a possible lawsuit should just resign I understandadmin make good money but they also need to be accountable for their actions and ifthe BA made a hostile environment and was supported by one BOE member both shouldbe gonenot just the BA352011 33207 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagecookmom wroteWhere is Gov Christies veto power352011 30321 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagecookmom wroteThis all happened with a local police officer and a FOP member and local high schoolteacher and member of the NJEA on the board The Runnemede Board is looking alotlike the DRPA and was this group picked by the new Mayor352011 30042 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagesickofpolsnj wroteThe real truth is the Board of Education member and Brazelton and the unethicalsituation that THEY created The questionable contracts and underhanded deals There isa certain Board Member that hopes that this ends here well it doesnt There is not aTeacher or employee in Runnemede Schools that would defend Brazelton same goes forSomerdale And many are willing to bring out MANY of the things that Brazelton did todestroy the district The ENTIRE Runnemede School Community is thrilled that Brazeltonis gone Snoopysam is clearly one of two people Kelly or the Board Member shouldwe name names Hows that Mayors race looking352011 114254 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser ImageShopsteward wrote$99465 plus benefits How much does she pay for her share of those benefitsor are they free to her Her replacement only works 24 hours a week are we being toldthat she got that much money for a part time job What is the matter with theidiots that hired her to begin withNo one should get that kind of money for a part timeThat is an awful lot of money for that kind of job We should not be surprised at all Thiskind of thing is everywhere in Camden CountyIts the NORMAL way of doingbusiness352011 113922 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagelookfar111 wroteYep same old story hire someone for $98000 when 10 equally qualified people woulddo it for 60k with a 20 year top out at 75 k Then a sweetheart adios gift And the cherry
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 31 of 77
on top Another tax increase for the people God I hate what the democrat machinehave done to this once great state352011 111649 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser ImageSnoopysam wrotesickofpolsnj you must be on ot those employees that Brazelton held accountable forHER actions You are right there is so much more to this story and when the real truthscome out there will be some emplopyeesadministratorsboard members hanging theirheads in shame Talk about wasting taxpayer dollars take a look at some of the lazyincompetent employees that Brazelton had to deal withand their HUGE mistakes thathad to be corrected which cost the taxpayers thousands upon thousands of dollars352011 94250 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagesickofpolsnj wroteYou are exactly correct A teacher would never get a sweatheart deal like this I wonderwhich Board Member it was that was mentioned in that letter Did you read the blog thatthis all came out on it has way more details than this articlehttpdansviewrunnemedewordpresscom352011 92934 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagesickofpolsnj wroteOnly thing is Runnemede never had these issues Somerdale had the same EXACT issueswith Brazelton Administrators arent allowed to comment however talk to the teachersand employees off record they will tell you all about Kelly352011 92726 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagesickofpolsnj wroteThere is so much more to this story I hope the CP will run a follow up 1 Look into therealtionship and hiring surrounding Doug the maintenance supervisor 2 Check intoBrazeltons past employment Somerdale Schools 3 Brazelton is rumored to be hired atthe completion of the settlement in Deptford 4 Look into unethical practices between aBoard Member and Brazelton 5 And what about the other Board member that wasrecently charged with a serious crime352011 92315 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imageicallbullschit wroteOnce again the government tries to pin their mistakes on an individual when they screwup royally What the paper fails to report is the other side Maybe years and years ofmismanagement and patronage were uncovered and it became a hostile environmentwhen people got called on their actions and the same old routine was stopped Maybethe school board realized it would be cheaper to pay one than to pay many for theirmistakes Maybe the school board was willing to pay in order to keep their dirty littlesecrets covered up Maybe the resident should look deeper into the actions of the schoolboard and the rest of the administration Maybe I am wrong but it seems that the board
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 32 of 77
got called on some issues and now they are attacking one individual to cover theirtracks They seem to be acting like the GREAT WIZARD OF OZ Pay no attention to theidiots behind the curtain we are the all powerful and all knowing school board Pull backthe curtain people because there are people behind there that are faking their waythrough and going to wind up costing the district millions Just saying352011 85642 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagecookmom wroteSchool board President Colleen Kurth said it was much easier to go with a separationagreement than pay more legal fees She compared paying Brazelton to paying ateacher out sick while a substitute fills in The job just has to go on Kurth said I amconfused A teacher out SICK is NOT the same as a HOSTILE work enviorment How cana medical condition be compared to a person being accused of a hostile workenviorment A teacher would be REQUIRED to use their sick days~ since this is beingcompared to an illness ~was Brazelton REQUIRED to give up her sickvacation pay orwas that part of the dealWas she also paid for those days Wouldnt we all love to becollecting a salary from two towns As now she is being paid by Runnemde AND acurrent SCHOOL district where she is currently employed THIS is the waste in ourSchool districts352011 83552 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imageneocon wroteShe is part of the Protected Classes All you need to know is that she is better thanyou so just keep moveing along Nothing to see here352011 81912 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report Abuse
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 33 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 34 of 77
New Jersey Libertarian PartyOpen Government Advocacy Project
John Paff Chairman
PO Box 5424
Somerset NJ 08875-5424
Phone 732-873-1251 - Fax 908-325-0129
Email lpsmcpoboxcom
May 7 2011
Hon Colleen Kurth President and members of the
Runnemede Board of Education
505 W Third Ave
Runnemede NJ 08078 (via e-mail to vcarmodyrunnemedeschoolsorg )
Dear President Kurth and Board members
I write both individually and on behalf the New Jersey Libertarian Partys Open
Government Advocacy Project to comment on 1) the manner in which the Board of Education
goes into nonpublic (ie executive or closed) session and 2) the level of detail contained within
the Boardrsquos executive session minutes
Issue 1 Executive Session resolutions
As you are aware the Senator Byron M Baer Open Public Meetings Act requires public
bodies such as the Runnemede Board of Education to publicly pass a resolution before
excluding the public from a meeting The statute that requires the resolution states
NJSA 104-13mdashClosed meetings resolution to conduct
No public body shall exclude the public from any meeting to discuss any
matter described in subsection 7 b (104-12) until the public body shall
first adopt a resolution at a meeting to which the public shall be admitted
a Stating the general nature of the subject to be discussed and
b Stating as precisely as possible the time when and the circumstances
under which the discussion conducted in closed session of the public body
can be disclosed to the public
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 35 of 77
2
By way of a recent records request I received resolutions which purport to authorize
executive sessions intended to be held by the Board of Education on July 28 2010 (2 sessions)
August 20 2010 February 2 1011 February 23 2011 (2 sessions) and March 2 2011 Those
resolutions which are virtually identical to each other state
Executive Session to discuss student matters personnel contractual and
legal matters [time and a statement as to whether action will be
taken]
[identity of maker of motion etc]
Resolved that pursuant to Section 8 of the Public Meetings Act the public
shall be excluded from that portion of the meeting involving the discussion
of personnel legal and contractual matters Further resolved that
discussion of such subject matters discussed in Executive Session can be
disclosed to public upon official action if any at the conclusion of the
executive session or at a public session at some later date
I dont think that this form of resolution satisfies NJSA 104-13 because it gives the
public no real sense of what is being privately discussed1 To paraphrase the highest court of of
another state a body which only announces ldquolegal mattersrdquo or ldquopersonnel negotiationsrdquo for
going into executive session has said nothing It might has well have stated to the audience
ldquoLadies and gentlemen we are going into executive sessionrdquo and stopped there Hinds County
Board of Supervisors v Common Cause of Mississippi 551 So2d 107 114 (MS 1989)
Of course there can be no dispute that the Board of Education often has legitimate
reasons to meet in nonpublic session Among these reasons is the need to prevent the adverse
parties in litigation or contract negotiations from gaining an unfair advantage and to allow
members of the governing body to debate and deliberate personnel matters without public
scrutiny or participation But the need to discuss matters privately should not prevent the
public from being informed as precisely as possible of the topics that are being privately
discussed
For example suppose that Runnemede Board is being sued by a Mr Jones who was
injured after he slipped and fell on what he claims to be negligently maintained school
property Since the lawsuit is already a public record there is no public purpose served by
vaguely describing a private discussion of it as ldquostudent matters personnel contractual and
legal mattersrdquo Rather the resolution should at the very least describe the private discussion as
1 In January 2007 when I most recently litigated this issue Middlesex County Superior Court Judge Alexander P
Waugh issued a written decision in which he agreed with other court decisions that closed session resolutions
should contain as much information as is consistent with full public knowledge without doing any harm to the
public interest Judge Waughs decision and other case documents are on the Web at
httpogtfarchiveorgOGTFMonroeBOEWebreadypdf
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 36 of 77
3
ldquoDiscussion of slip and fall negligence suit Jones v Runnemede Board Docket No CAM-L-
012345-11rdquo This way the public has a very good sense of what the Boardrsquos private discussion is
about while the ability of the Board to develop its lawsuit strategy is not undermined
Using the same example suppose that Jonesrsquo attorney sent the Boardrsquos attorney an offer
to fully settle the lawsuit upon the Boardrsquos payment of $20000 While the Board would
obviously need to discuss how to respond to the offer in private lest Jones or his attorney
would be in the audience witnessing the discussion there is no reason why the public cannot be
informed in the NJSA 104-13 resolution that the Board will meet in private to discuss ldquoa
settlement offer received from the Plaintiff in the slip and fall negligence suit known as Jones v
Runnemede Board Docket No CAM-L-012345-11 in which the Plaintiff offers to settle the suit
in exchange for the Board paying him $20000rdquo While it may initially seem that this would
provide ldquotoo muchrdquo information to the public this concern disappears once it is realized that
the sole purpose of the exception2 that allows litigation matters to be discussed in private is to
keep the adverse party to the litigation in the dark regarding the Boardrsquos position3 Since in this
example the adverse party (ie Jones) already knows that he offered to settle the lawsuit for
$20000 there is no legitimate reason why the public should not also know of the tendered
settlement offer
As another example suppose that a personnel matter such as whether or not a Mrs
Smith a public works employee should be disciplined because of repeatedly arriving late to
work is to be discussed in closed session In such a case the amount of detail set forth in the
NJSA 104-13 resolution should correspond to the amount of detail that the Board and its
attorney predict will be publicly disclosed in the closed meetingrsquos minutes when those minutes
are made public
The standard that the Board is to use when determining how much information about a
personnel matter is to be disclosed in the closed sessionrsquos minutes is set forth in South Jersey
Publishing Company Inc v New Jersey Expressway Authority 124 NJ 478 (1991) That
standard is that a) the public needs information if it is properly fulfill its role of evaluating the
wisdom of governmental action or a decision not to act b) that New Jerseys strong public
policy requires that a public bodyrsquos actions and decisions to not act be disclosed in the bodys
closed meeting minutes along with sufficient facts and information to permit the public to
understand and appraise the reasonableness of the bodys determination and c) to the extent a
cognizable privacy interest may be compromised by the required disclosure the extent of
disclosure may be modified through redactions of the minutes provided the public interest in
disclosure is not subverted
2 NJSA104-12(b)(7) is to prevent adverse parties to litigation and contracts from learning the details of the
public bodyrsquos negotiation tactics and litigation strategy3 See the discussion in Paff v Washington Township Docket No MER-L-2205-07 and Nevin v Asbury Park City
Board 2005 WL 2847974 (App Div November 1 2005) which are on-line at
httpogtfarchiveorgOGTFWashingtonpdf (Nevin begins at page 44 of the PDF file at the link)
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 37 of 77
4
Thus regardless of whether the Board disciplines Ms Smith or chooses to not impose
discipline due to her lateness the outcome should be recorded in the closed meeting minutes
The question of whether that entry in the minutes should be redacted before the minutes are
made public requires a balancing of Ms Smithrsquos interest in keeping the disciplinary matter
private against the publicrsquos interest in effectively monitoring the Board If the Board with
counselrsquos advice determines after balancing these interests that the outcome will be published
unredacted in the closed sessionrsquos minutes (ie if the minutes will disclose to the public eg that
ldquoMs Smith was suspended for three days on account of her habitual latenessrdquo) then the exact
nature of the matter (ie that ldquothe Board will discuss disciplining Ms Smith for excessive
latenessrdquo) should be set forth in the closed meetingrsquos NJSA 104-13 resolution Inversely if the
Board determines that Ms Smithrsquos privacy interest exceeds the publicrsquos right to know then less
information (eg ldquothe Board will discuss disciplining an employee for excessive latenessrdquo)
should be set forth in the closed meetingrsquos NJSA 104-13 resolution
In other words if the officer or employee being discussed doesnt have a privacy interest
sufficient to withstand a citizens request for the executive session minutes why should not the
public know the topic of the executive session prior to it occurring
Irsquove attached as Exhibit pages 1 -3 is a model resolution that I would like the Board to
use in the future
Issue 2 Executive Session minutes
Attached as Exhibit Page 4 as an example are the Boardrsquos July 28 2010 executive session
minutes It is troubling that a meeting that lasted over an hour is being summed up in a single
sentence ldquoMr Phil Stern addressed the Board of Education about personnel issuesrdquo These
minutes are not ldquoreasonably comprehensiblerdquo as required by NJSA 104-14
The purpose of closed meeting minutes is not merely to inform the public of whatoccurred during the private session but also to create a record for the Board membersthemselves A Board member who is newly elected in 2012 should be able by referringsolely to the minutes to figure out what issues the Board addressed during any previouslyheld closed meeting This hypothetical Board member after reading the July 28 2010closed minutes could not possibly figure out which employees or officials Mr Stern wastalking about
Better practice would be to record closed minutes that are much morecomprehensive but to redact that material that must be shielded from public view Forexample the minutes could have said
Mr Stern addressed the Board of Education about the habitualtardiness of 2nd grade teacher Mary Doe and her propensity to eatlibrary paste and scream hysterically during fire drills Herecommended that she be sent for psychiatric evaluation
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 38 of 77
5
Of course if a member of the public requested these hypothetical minutes the Boardmay need to redact them in order to protect privacy interests The point however is thatregardless of whether unredacted closed meeting minutes are ever released to the publicthey should contain sufficient details so that the Board members themselves can monthsor years later know what was discussed
Attached as Exhibit pages 5 ndash 9 is an order recently entered in Schmidt et al v City of
Gloucester City et al Docket No CAM-L-1287-11 As you can see paraA(3) supports my position
that the Boardrsquos minutes are not ldquoreasonably comprehensiblerdquo as required by law
Conclusion
Since some public bodies do not take my requests for Meetings Act compliance seriously
I regret having to inform the Board that I will sue for declaratory and injunctive relief in
accordance with NJSA 104-16 unless I receive assurances from the Boardmdashwithin a few days
after its May 10 2011 meetingmdashthat it will work in good faith to improve the amount of
information in both its closed session resolutions and minutes If the Boardrsquos agenda is already
set for the May 10 2011 meeting please at least acknowledge this letter and let me know the
date of the meeting at which it will be considered
Thank you very much for your attention to this matter I look forward to hearing from
you
Sincerely
John Paff
cc Philip E Stern Esq w enc (via e-mail to psternasgllawcom )
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 39 of 77
RUNNEMEDE BOARD OF EDUCATIONRESOLUTION NO ___________
AUTHORIZING EXECUTIVE SESSION
WHEREAS while the Sen Byron M Baer Open Public Meetings Act (NJSA 104-6 et seq) requires allmeetings of the Runnemede Board of Education to be held in public NJSA 104-12(b) sets forth nine (9)types of matters that may lawfully be discussed in ldquoExecutive Sessionrdquo ie without the public beingpermitted to attend and
WHEREAS the Runnemede Board of Education has determined that _____ (insert number) issues arepermitted by NJSA 104-12(b) to be discussed without the public in attendance shall be discussed duringan Executive Session to be held on _________________________ 20____ at _______ PM and
WHEREAS the nine (9) exceptions to public meetings set forth in NJSA 104-12(b) are listed below andnext to each exception is a box within which the number of issues to be privately discussed that fall withinthat exception shall be written and after each exception is a space where additional information that willdisclose as much information about the discussion as possible without undermining the purpose of theexception shall be written
ldquo(1) Any matter which by express provision of Federal law State statute or rule of courtshall be rendered confidential or excluded from public discussionrdquo The legal citation to theprovision(s) at issue is__________________________ and the nature of the matter described asspecifically as possible without undermining the need for confidentiality is _______________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(2) Any matter in which the release of information would impair a right to receive fundsfrom the federal governmentrdquo The nature of the matter described as specifically as possiblewithout undermining the need for confidentiality is _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(3) Any material the disclosure of which constitutes an unwarranted invasion of individualprivacy such as any records data reports recommendations or other personal material ofany educational training social service medical health custodial child protectionrehabilitation legal defense welfare housing relocation insurance and similar program orinstitution operated by a public body pertaining to any specific individual admitted to orserved by such institution or program including but not limited to information relative tothe individuals personal and family circumstances and any material pertaining toadmission discharge treatment progress or condition of any individual unless theindividual concerned (or in the case of a minor or incompetent his guardian) shall requestin writing that the same be disclosed publiclyrdquo The nature of the matter described asspecifically as possible without undermining the need for confidentiality is______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(4) Any collective bargaining agreement or the terms and conditions of which are proposedfor inclusion in any collective bargaining agreement including the negotiation of terms andconditions with employees or representatives of employees of the public bodyrdquo The collectivebargaining contract(s) discussed are between the Board and ____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Exhibit Page 1Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 40 of 77
ldquo(5) Any matter involving the purchase lease or acquisition of real property with publicfunds the setting of bank rates or investment of public funds where it could adversely affectthe public interest if discussion of such matters were disclosedrdquo The nature of the matterdescribed as specifically as possible without undermining the need for confidentiality is____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(6) Any tactics and techniques utilized in protecting the safety and property of the publicprovided that their disclosure could impair such protection Any investigations of violationsor possible violations of the lawrdquo The nature of the matter described as specifically as possiblewithout undermining the need for confidentiality is ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(7) Any pending or anticipated litigation or contract negotiation in which the public body isor may become a party Any matters falling within the attorney-client privilege to the extentthat confidentiality is required in order for the attorney to exercise his ethicalduties as a lawyerrdquo The parties to and docket numbers of each item of litigation andor theparties to each contract discussed are __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ andnature of the discussion described as specifically as possible without undermining the need forconfidentiality is ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(8) Any matter involving the employment appointment termination of employment termsand conditions of employment evaluation of the performance promotion or disciplining ofany specific prospective public officer or employee or current public officer or employeeemployed or appointed by the public body unless all individual employees or appointees whoserights could be adversely affected request in writing that such matter or matters be discussed ata public meetingrdquo Subject to the balancing of the publicrsquos interest and the employeersquos privacyrights under South Jersey Publishing Co v New Jersey Expressway Authority 124 NJ 478 theemployee(s) and nature of the discussion described as specifically as possible withoutundermining the need for confidentiality are _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(9) Any deliberation of a public body occurring after a public hearing that may result in theimposition of a specific civil penalty upon the responding party or the suspension or loss of alicense or permit belonging to the responding party as a result of an act of omission forwhich the responding party bears responsibilityrdquo The nature of the matter described asspecifically as possible without undermining the need for confidentiality is______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
WHEREAS the length of the Executive Session is estimated to be ________ minutes after which the publicmeeting of the Board shall (circle one) reconvene and immediately adjourn or reconvene and proceed withbusiness
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Runnemede Board of Education will go into ExecutiveSession for only the above stated reasons
Exhibit Page 2Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 41 of 77
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board hereby declares that its discussion of the aforementionedsubject(s) will be made public at a time when the publicrsquos interest in disclosure is greater than any privacy orgovernmental interest being protected from disclosure For each of the above items the estimated date bywhich such disclosure can be made andor the occurrence that needs to take place before disclosure can bemade are listed below (attach separate sheet if necessary)
Subject of Discussion Estimated Date Necessary Occurrence
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Clerk at the present public meeting shall read aloud enough ofthis resolution so that members of the public in attendance can understand as precisely as possible thenature of the matters that will privately discussed
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Clerk on the next business day following this meeting shallfurnish a copy of this resolution to any member of the public who requests one at the fees allowed byNJSA 471A-1 et seq
_________________________________Board President
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS ATRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTIONAPPROVED BY THE RUNNEMEDE BOARD OF EDUCATION AT ITSPUBLIC MEETING HELD ON ______________________20___
_______________________________________Board Secretary
Exhibit Page 3Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 42 of 77
Exhibit Page 4Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 43 of 77
Exhibit Page 5Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 44 of 77
Exhibit Page 6Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 45 of 77
Exhibit Page 7Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 46 of 77
Exhibit Page 8Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 47 of 77
Exhibit Page 9Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 48 of 77
Subject Records RequestFrom John Paff ltpaffpoboxcomgtDate Sat 07 May 2011 161444 -0400To vcarmodyrunnemedeschoolsorgCC psternasgllawcom
Ms Carmody
Please accept this e-mail as my request for government records inaccordance with the Open Public Records Act (OPRA) and the commonlaw right of access Please respond and send all responsivedocuments to me via e-mail at paffpoboxcom If e-mail is notpossible please fax responses and responsive records to me at908-325-0129 Also I would appreciate it if you wouldacknowledge your receipt of this e-mail
Background
In response to a records request I recently received redactedexecutive session minutes for the following dates July 28 2010(first session) August 26 2010 February 2 2011 February 232011 (two sessions) and March 2 2011 Although Mr Stern providedme with a sheet entitled Documents Exempt From OPRA request thatpurports to explain these redactions I am still unclear as to whythe matter was redacted and whether it was lawfully redacted
First I dont understand references such as NJSA 471A-11(12)(c) The version of OPRA that I have (plus every other oneIve seen) does not have internal numbers within NJSA471A-11 Am I correct that NJSA 471A-11(12)(c) isintended to refer to the exemption for records in connection withcollective negotiations including documents and statements ofstrategy or negotiating position and that NJSA 471A-11(7)is intended to refer to any record within the attorney-clientprivilege This paragraph shall not be construed as exempting fromaccess attorney or consultant bills or invoices except that suchbills or invoices may be redacted to remove any informationprotected by the attorney-client privilege Please advise
Second even if I correctly corresponded the claimed exemptions tothe OPRA statute I have no way of knowing whether the mattersredacted are actually exempt from access When a custodiansuppresses any portion of any requested record NJSA471A-5(g) requires him or her to state the ldquospecific basisrdquo foreach suppressed element Beyond stating the ldquospecific basisrdquo foreach suppressed element he or she is required to ldquoproduce
Records Request
1 of 2 622011 810 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 49 of 77
specific reliable evidence sufficient to meet a statutorilyrecognized basis for confidentialityrdquo Courier News v HunterdonCounty Prosecutorrsquos Office 358 NJ Super 373 382-83 (App Div2003) Further he or she must explain each suppression in amanner that ldquowill enable other parties to assess the applicabilityof the privilege or protectionrdquo Paff v New Jersey Department ofLabor Board of Review 379 NJ Super 346 354-55 (2005)(quoting R 410-2(e))
Records requested
Runnemede Board of Education minutes for the following dates July28 2010 (728 pm session only) August 26 2010 February 22011 February 23 2011 (both sessions) and March 2 2011 Iwould like these minutes redacted as narrowly as possible if atall For each redaction I request a written explanation thatmeets the requirements of the case law cited above
cc Phil Stern
Records Request
2 of 2 622011 810 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 50 of 77
Subject Re Fwd Runnemede Board of Education Open PublicMeetings ActFrom John Paff ltpaffpoboxcomgtDate Mon 09 May 2011 134726 -0400To Nancy Ward ltnwardrunnemedeschoolsorggt
Thank you
On 592011 116 PM Nancy Ward wrote
Mr Paff
The Board has named me Custodian of Records Please direct allfuturecommunication to me The May 10 2011 meeting is theRe-organization ofthe Runnemede Board of Education The agenda is set and is verycomprehensive I intend to defer the letter and any discussionregardingits content to the next regular meeting the date of which willbe setat the re-organization tomorrow night In keeping with thedistrictsmeeting pattern that will be May 25 2011
Nancy BWard EdD
Superintendent of Schools
-----Original Message-----From John PaffSent 572011 42300 PMTo nwardrunnemedeschoolsorgCc vcarmodyrunnemedeschoolsorg psternasgllawcomSubject Fwd Runnemede Board of Education Open Public MeetingsAct
Here is another e-mail in case my original one should have beendirected to Ms Ward and not Ms Carmody
JP
-------- Original Message --------Subject Runnemede Board of Education Open Public Meetings ActDate Sat 07 May 2011 152319 -0400From John Paff
Re Fwd Runnemede Board of Education Open Public Meetings Act
1 of 2 622011 811 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 51 of 77
Reply-To paffpoboxcomTo vcarmodyrunnemedeschoolsorg psternasgllawcom
Ms Carmody and Mr Stern
Attached is a letter that I would like the Board to consider atits May10 2011 meeting Would you please a) acknowledge receipt of theletterand b) distribute it to all the Board members
Note that the last paragraph of the letter indicates that I willfilesuit against the Board if the issues in the letter arentaddressedSo if the Boards agenda for the May 10th meeting is so tightthat myletter cannot be accommodated please advise me of such andprovide ameeting date where my letter will be addressed so that I knowthat I amnot being ignored
Thank you
John Paff ChairmanNew Jersey Libertarian PartysOpen Government Advocacy Project
Re Fwd Runnemede Board of Education Open Public Meetings Act
2 of 2 622011 811 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 52 of 77
Subject OPRA RequestFrom Philip Stern ltpsternasgllawcomgtDate Fri 20 May 2011 161015 -0500To paffpoboxcom ltpaffpoboxcomgtCC Nancy Ward ltnwardrunnemedeschoolsorggt
Mr Paff please find attached to this email a response to your request forbusiness records Please note that in providing you with the attachedrecords the Runnemede Borough Board of Education waives no rightsregarding the attorney-client privilege Do not hesitate to call me if youhave any questions Phil Stern
Philip E SternAdams Stern Gutierrez amp Lattiboudere LLCThe Legal Center1037 Raymond Blvd Suite 710Newark New Jersey 07102(973) 735-2742 (office telephone)(201) 914-2415 (cellular telephone)(973) 735-2743 (office telefax)
May 20 Paff responsepdf
Content-DescriptionMay 20 Paffresponsepdf
Content-Type applicationpdf
Content-Encoding base64
OPRA Request
1 of 1 622011 815 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 53 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 54 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 55 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 56 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 57 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 58 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 59 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 60 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 61 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 62 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 63 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 64 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 65 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 66 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 67 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 68 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 69 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 70 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 71 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 72 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 73 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 74 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 75 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 76 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 77 of 77
- Civil Complaint
- Exhibits
-
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 9 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 10 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 11 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 12 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 13 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 14 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 15 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 16 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 17 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 18 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 19 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 20 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 21 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 22 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 23 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 24 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 25 of 77
Idled officials payout riles Runnemede
By BARBARA S ROTHSCHILD bull Courier-Post Staff bull March 5 2011
RUNNEMEDE mdash Although the school district is paying Business Administrator Kelly PetersBrazelton her full salary to stay home while paying for an interim employee RunnemedeSuperintendent Nancy Ward said it could have cost more not to have a separationagreement
New Jersey is a very litigious state she said In order to avoid litigation which neveris a good thing a separation agreement gives you a certain outcome
Brazelton a Deptford resident and the former business administrator for the SomerdalePublic School District began working for Runnemede schools in August 2008 Her mostrecent contract for July 1 2010 through June 30 is for $99465 plus benefits
But the relationship soured and the district would not comment on specifics citingconfidentiality
A letter from staff members written to Ward and the school board in July 2010 gaveexamples of a hostile work environment that they said was created by the businessadministrator
Brazelton could not be reached Her attorney Joseph Betley of Mount Laurel said hisclient signed the separation agreement in good faith
There was a disagreement between the board and Kelly he said It was resolved andboth sides decided to move on
She disputes any and all allegations regarding a hostile work environment It wassimply Kelly doing her job
The separation agreement and release dated Oct 20 stipulates Brazelton be placed ona paid leave of absence from Sept 23 to April 15 at which time she would irrevocablyresign
School board President Colleen Kurth said it was much easier to go with a separationagreement than pay more legal fees
She compared paying Brazelton to paying a teacher out sick while a substitute fills in
The job just has to go on Kurth said
Interim Business Administrator Valerie Carmody who retired from the same post in EastGreenwich last year was hired Dec 1 at $60 per hour 24 hours maximum per weekHer contract ends June 30
New Jersey School Boards Association spokesman Mike Yaple said such separationagreements are infrequent
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 26 of 77
No school board willingly enters into an agreement like this he insisted But eventhough its not a popular decision its the lesser of two evils
Residents unhappy about the districts handling of the situation include Dan Conard ajournalism student at Rowan University Conard writes a blog where he discusses schooldistrict and municipal matters To comment on this topic he filed Open Public RecordsAct (OPRA) document requests
I just wanted to get it out there so people know what is going on Conard said
Ward said she has no quarrel with the student but believes Brazeltons case is anunusual circumstance
It (the separation agreement) was the most responsible thing the district could havedone she insisted Was it a bitter pill to swallow It took the board (a while) beforethey felt it was something they could do but it makes the most sense
Ward said the part-time arrangement with Carmody is working out well and that as thedistrict improves efficiency it is unlikely another full-time business administrator will behired particularly when Executive County Superintendent Peggy Nicolosi has advisedagainst it
Among the options being considered are another part-time business administrator or ashared-service agreement with another district
Ward said she would have preferred the money being expended in this case be spent oneducational programs and teachers particularly this year
Although voters passed Runnemedes 2010-11 budget while many others were defeatedlast April the district of 853 students in K-8 lost six staffers and streamlined its gifted-and-talented program after state aid was cut
Ward also defended the decision to keep a maintenance techniciansupervisor positioncreated in 2008 noting it has saved at least $145000 each year
Mark Speck of Voorhees earns $50000 in the post Through June 2010 it was filled byDoug McGarry a former building and grounds supervisor in the Somerdale district Heearned $60000 in Runnemede but had more experience than Speck Ward said
Before Brazelton arrived in Runnemede the business administrator also served asmaintenance supervisor Ward said that actually cost the district more because it had topay outside maintenance workers sometimes for faulty work
Many things had been done to the facilities that were not to the boards satisfactionshe said That first year with our own maintenance person we saved $145000 becausewe hired a person who fixed things
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 27 of 77
Speck works with vendors going over bids and quotes and also does minor repairs thatno longer have to be paid for piecemeal Ward said the position is staying in the 2011-2012 budget adopted preliminarily on Wednesday
Hes the guy whos here at 4 am making sure weve got snow plows when we needthem Ward said Hes dirty and sweaty -- and hes excellent
Ward said the budget sent to the county includes a $78 annual tax increase for theowner of a home assessed at the $97800 borough average but does not cut staff orprograms
Kurth hopes to tweak the budget and lower the tax hike before it is introduced to thepublic on March 23 But she agreed the maintenance supervisor will stay
That was an investment on the part of the school district Kurth said
Reach Barbara S Rothschild at (856) 486-2416 or barothschildcamdengannettcom
--Comments
User Imageamonkeycoulddoit wroteThe mayor cant hear you because she doesnt even know how to turn on a computerNot that it was a requirement that the mayor should know how to use one I think theonly requirement is that they have a pulse And she does but barely372011 12406 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imageamonkeycoulddoit wroteTo sickofpolsnj it does seem that snoopysam has some inside information And whenyou say hows that mayors race looking I hope that you dont mean that someone fromthe disfunctional school board is going to run for mayor or council or some other electedposition considering the mess that they made on the school board372011 11832 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imageamonkeycoulddoit wroteIf the school board president had listened to staff when the hostil work enviroment issuestarted then she might not be in this pickle She should have spent the money on thelegal fees because if everything is true about the hostile enviroment then they wouldhave won the lawsuit hands down and not had to pay out anything and gotten their legalfees back Another example of elected officials not capable of doing the job they are inLets hope that some people come out of the woodwork to run for school board peoplewho care about the kids and the taxpayers372011 11309 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imageamonkeycoulddoit wrote
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 28 of 77
The school boad is not as inept as the mayor and council You dont have to be a collegegraduate or or even be able to read or write to get an elected position in runnemedeThe 2 new council members got elected because the are involved in the union andeveryone who supports the union came out to vote And the new mayor must have a lotof friends But now after the few months they have been in office it is clear to see thatthey are not able to handle the job Mayor14 is right that the people of Runnemedevoted because they thought they would get something in return for their vote but itlooks like they were wrong In the upcoming elections for school board and council votefor the person who will do the best job whether you like them or not Dont just vote forsomeone because you are told to372011 10214 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagethemayor14 wrotei am so glad this article was written and it clearly points out how inept the runnemedeboard of education actually is the board of education is not elected based on businessand education talent the elections are nothing more than a popularity contest i dontknow how other towns operate but runnemede boro is a total joke when it come toelections be it school board or general elections i wish everyone would get their headsout of their A$$ and truly investigate the school board canidates that are running forelection VOTE WITH YOUR HEAD NOT WITH YOUR HEART362011 91350 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagesavetheschools wroteSeveral people are running for the board for four open seats I signed a petition todayfor a new woman running Members are not paid If you live in Runnemede shopstewardyou have until Tuesday to get a petition submitted I asked and found out there is only 5people on average at the BOE meetings every month in Runnemede I hope more peoplestart to go I plan on it myself And we all need to go every month not just when weread negative press about our schools That is the only way we would all stay informedand not rely on the young man submitting OPRA requests Our town has always beenabout the kids and it needs to get back that way362011 80936 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser ImageShopsteward wroteWhy did it take one young man sending in OPRA requests to bring all this to lightWhy are you relying upon him to get to the bottom of it You say The other members(except for the one who was just arrested and resigned) are good people and didnothing wrong to the district and that might be true except for the fact that theyallowed that incredible salary and benefits to be given out and even though all kinds ofrumors were flying around it took an outsider with OPRA requests to bring this ghastlypimple to a head Sounds more like none of them are doing their jobs and should be outof office and off the payroll They should all just resign They arent doing the job thatwas assigned to them362011 32559 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Image
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 29 of 77
Shopsteward wroteA crime was committed here It began with a violation of the Publics trust by the peoplewho allowed this contract to be signed in the first place What a jokeHow many moreof these jobs are hidden in the budgets of our Schools There needs to be a thouroughcleaning of all thses tyeps of employees everywhere At the State County Municipaland Scool board level and the appointed Authorities too Everyone screams about theUnions but whenever you hear of some great big abuse it turns out the person wasnteven in the UnionClean up this mess first Mr Christie before yougo after the little guys It will save us all a lot more money362011 101606 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser ImageShopsteward wroteI still dont get itHow is a part time24 hr a week job worth so much This is aprime example of the waste that is giving the public workers a bad nameThe onlyproblem is it isnt some Union personIts management and its the same all over This isjust the tip of the iceberg they scream about the Unions but the real waste is in jobs likethis oneNo way this job or the thousands of others like it should be paid so well99465 PLUS BENEFITS incrediblethere should be a lawandthe person gets a pension based on that bloated salarytooThere should be other people losing their jobs not for theseperation aggreement but for letting this evenhappen352011 101125 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagethesplits wroteI guess this is Runnemedes version of a shared service352011 73450 PM
User Imagethesplits wroteLooks like its the same old Runnemede and I thought we voted for change Mayor352011 73202 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagesavetheschools wroteFrom what I understand and I live in town the board went into this separationagreement because the BA would have had a potential lawsuit and it would have costthe school district and tax payers a ton of money Much more than they are spendingnow And yes it is one school board member who was apparently corrupt Just one Theyoung man who was mentioned in the article has been OPRA requesting items and willget to the bottom of this situation with the former BA and the certain board memberBut that is just one person The other members (except for the one who was justarrested and resigned) are good people and did nothing wrong to the district Thisformer BA and her friend who was hired as the maint supervisor have been a hot topicfor a few years Ask the employees they were awful and needed to go It is awful thatthis money was not spent on our children It was a trainwreck from the beginning and ifI recall correctly when the hiring took place only one of the members voted no and that
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 30 of 77
was the local high school teacher metioned in another post Runnemede schools arefantastic and maybe the new people running for election will get some answers andmake some changes And maybe the BOE member who was mentioned by employees asbeing the reason why there could be a possible lawsuit should just resign I understandadmin make good money but they also need to be accountable for their actions and ifthe BA made a hostile environment and was supported by one BOE member both shouldbe gonenot just the BA352011 33207 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagecookmom wroteWhere is Gov Christies veto power352011 30321 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagecookmom wroteThis all happened with a local police officer and a FOP member and local high schoolteacher and member of the NJEA on the board The Runnemede Board is looking alotlike the DRPA and was this group picked by the new Mayor352011 30042 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagesickofpolsnj wroteThe real truth is the Board of Education member and Brazelton and the unethicalsituation that THEY created The questionable contracts and underhanded deals There isa certain Board Member that hopes that this ends here well it doesnt There is not aTeacher or employee in Runnemede Schools that would defend Brazelton same goes forSomerdale And many are willing to bring out MANY of the things that Brazelton did todestroy the district The ENTIRE Runnemede School Community is thrilled that Brazeltonis gone Snoopysam is clearly one of two people Kelly or the Board Member shouldwe name names Hows that Mayors race looking352011 114254 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser ImageShopsteward wrote$99465 plus benefits How much does she pay for her share of those benefitsor are they free to her Her replacement only works 24 hours a week are we being toldthat she got that much money for a part time job What is the matter with theidiots that hired her to begin withNo one should get that kind of money for a part timeThat is an awful lot of money for that kind of job We should not be surprised at all Thiskind of thing is everywhere in Camden CountyIts the NORMAL way of doingbusiness352011 113922 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagelookfar111 wroteYep same old story hire someone for $98000 when 10 equally qualified people woulddo it for 60k with a 20 year top out at 75 k Then a sweetheart adios gift And the cherry
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 31 of 77
on top Another tax increase for the people God I hate what the democrat machinehave done to this once great state352011 111649 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser ImageSnoopysam wrotesickofpolsnj you must be on ot those employees that Brazelton held accountable forHER actions You are right there is so much more to this story and when the real truthscome out there will be some emplopyeesadministratorsboard members hanging theirheads in shame Talk about wasting taxpayer dollars take a look at some of the lazyincompetent employees that Brazelton had to deal withand their HUGE mistakes thathad to be corrected which cost the taxpayers thousands upon thousands of dollars352011 94250 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagesickofpolsnj wroteYou are exactly correct A teacher would never get a sweatheart deal like this I wonderwhich Board Member it was that was mentioned in that letter Did you read the blog thatthis all came out on it has way more details than this articlehttpdansviewrunnemedewordpresscom352011 92934 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagesickofpolsnj wroteOnly thing is Runnemede never had these issues Somerdale had the same EXACT issueswith Brazelton Administrators arent allowed to comment however talk to the teachersand employees off record they will tell you all about Kelly352011 92726 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagesickofpolsnj wroteThere is so much more to this story I hope the CP will run a follow up 1 Look into therealtionship and hiring surrounding Doug the maintenance supervisor 2 Check intoBrazeltons past employment Somerdale Schools 3 Brazelton is rumored to be hired atthe completion of the settlement in Deptford 4 Look into unethical practices between aBoard Member and Brazelton 5 And what about the other Board member that wasrecently charged with a serious crime352011 92315 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imageicallbullschit wroteOnce again the government tries to pin their mistakes on an individual when they screwup royally What the paper fails to report is the other side Maybe years and years ofmismanagement and patronage were uncovered and it became a hostile environmentwhen people got called on their actions and the same old routine was stopped Maybethe school board realized it would be cheaper to pay one than to pay many for theirmistakes Maybe the school board was willing to pay in order to keep their dirty littlesecrets covered up Maybe the resident should look deeper into the actions of the schoolboard and the rest of the administration Maybe I am wrong but it seems that the board
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 32 of 77
got called on some issues and now they are attacking one individual to cover theirtracks They seem to be acting like the GREAT WIZARD OF OZ Pay no attention to theidiots behind the curtain we are the all powerful and all knowing school board Pull backthe curtain people because there are people behind there that are faking their waythrough and going to wind up costing the district millions Just saying352011 85642 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagecookmom wroteSchool board President Colleen Kurth said it was much easier to go with a separationagreement than pay more legal fees She compared paying Brazelton to paying ateacher out sick while a substitute fills in The job just has to go on Kurth said I amconfused A teacher out SICK is NOT the same as a HOSTILE work enviorment How cana medical condition be compared to a person being accused of a hostile workenviorment A teacher would be REQUIRED to use their sick days~ since this is beingcompared to an illness ~was Brazelton REQUIRED to give up her sickvacation pay orwas that part of the dealWas she also paid for those days Wouldnt we all love to becollecting a salary from two towns As now she is being paid by Runnemde AND acurrent SCHOOL district where she is currently employed THIS is the waste in ourSchool districts352011 83552 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imageneocon wroteShe is part of the Protected Classes All you need to know is that she is better thanyou so just keep moveing along Nothing to see here352011 81912 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report Abuse
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 33 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 34 of 77
New Jersey Libertarian PartyOpen Government Advocacy Project
John Paff Chairman
PO Box 5424
Somerset NJ 08875-5424
Phone 732-873-1251 - Fax 908-325-0129
Email lpsmcpoboxcom
May 7 2011
Hon Colleen Kurth President and members of the
Runnemede Board of Education
505 W Third Ave
Runnemede NJ 08078 (via e-mail to vcarmodyrunnemedeschoolsorg )
Dear President Kurth and Board members
I write both individually and on behalf the New Jersey Libertarian Partys Open
Government Advocacy Project to comment on 1) the manner in which the Board of Education
goes into nonpublic (ie executive or closed) session and 2) the level of detail contained within
the Boardrsquos executive session minutes
Issue 1 Executive Session resolutions
As you are aware the Senator Byron M Baer Open Public Meetings Act requires public
bodies such as the Runnemede Board of Education to publicly pass a resolution before
excluding the public from a meeting The statute that requires the resolution states
NJSA 104-13mdashClosed meetings resolution to conduct
No public body shall exclude the public from any meeting to discuss any
matter described in subsection 7 b (104-12) until the public body shall
first adopt a resolution at a meeting to which the public shall be admitted
a Stating the general nature of the subject to be discussed and
b Stating as precisely as possible the time when and the circumstances
under which the discussion conducted in closed session of the public body
can be disclosed to the public
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 35 of 77
2
By way of a recent records request I received resolutions which purport to authorize
executive sessions intended to be held by the Board of Education on July 28 2010 (2 sessions)
August 20 2010 February 2 1011 February 23 2011 (2 sessions) and March 2 2011 Those
resolutions which are virtually identical to each other state
Executive Session to discuss student matters personnel contractual and
legal matters [time and a statement as to whether action will be
taken]
[identity of maker of motion etc]
Resolved that pursuant to Section 8 of the Public Meetings Act the public
shall be excluded from that portion of the meeting involving the discussion
of personnel legal and contractual matters Further resolved that
discussion of such subject matters discussed in Executive Session can be
disclosed to public upon official action if any at the conclusion of the
executive session or at a public session at some later date
I dont think that this form of resolution satisfies NJSA 104-13 because it gives the
public no real sense of what is being privately discussed1 To paraphrase the highest court of of
another state a body which only announces ldquolegal mattersrdquo or ldquopersonnel negotiationsrdquo for
going into executive session has said nothing It might has well have stated to the audience
ldquoLadies and gentlemen we are going into executive sessionrdquo and stopped there Hinds County
Board of Supervisors v Common Cause of Mississippi 551 So2d 107 114 (MS 1989)
Of course there can be no dispute that the Board of Education often has legitimate
reasons to meet in nonpublic session Among these reasons is the need to prevent the adverse
parties in litigation or contract negotiations from gaining an unfair advantage and to allow
members of the governing body to debate and deliberate personnel matters without public
scrutiny or participation But the need to discuss matters privately should not prevent the
public from being informed as precisely as possible of the topics that are being privately
discussed
For example suppose that Runnemede Board is being sued by a Mr Jones who was
injured after he slipped and fell on what he claims to be negligently maintained school
property Since the lawsuit is already a public record there is no public purpose served by
vaguely describing a private discussion of it as ldquostudent matters personnel contractual and
legal mattersrdquo Rather the resolution should at the very least describe the private discussion as
1 In January 2007 when I most recently litigated this issue Middlesex County Superior Court Judge Alexander P
Waugh issued a written decision in which he agreed with other court decisions that closed session resolutions
should contain as much information as is consistent with full public knowledge without doing any harm to the
public interest Judge Waughs decision and other case documents are on the Web at
httpogtfarchiveorgOGTFMonroeBOEWebreadypdf
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 36 of 77
3
ldquoDiscussion of slip and fall negligence suit Jones v Runnemede Board Docket No CAM-L-
012345-11rdquo This way the public has a very good sense of what the Boardrsquos private discussion is
about while the ability of the Board to develop its lawsuit strategy is not undermined
Using the same example suppose that Jonesrsquo attorney sent the Boardrsquos attorney an offer
to fully settle the lawsuit upon the Boardrsquos payment of $20000 While the Board would
obviously need to discuss how to respond to the offer in private lest Jones or his attorney
would be in the audience witnessing the discussion there is no reason why the public cannot be
informed in the NJSA 104-13 resolution that the Board will meet in private to discuss ldquoa
settlement offer received from the Plaintiff in the slip and fall negligence suit known as Jones v
Runnemede Board Docket No CAM-L-012345-11 in which the Plaintiff offers to settle the suit
in exchange for the Board paying him $20000rdquo While it may initially seem that this would
provide ldquotoo muchrdquo information to the public this concern disappears once it is realized that
the sole purpose of the exception2 that allows litigation matters to be discussed in private is to
keep the adverse party to the litigation in the dark regarding the Boardrsquos position3 Since in this
example the adverse party (ie Jones) already knows that he offered to settle the lawsuit for
$20000 there is no legitimate reason why the public should not also know of the tendered
settlement offer
As another example suppose that a personnel matter such as whether or not a Mrs
Smith a public works employee should be disciplined because of repeatedly arriving late to
work is to be discussed in closed session In such a case the amount of detail set forth in the
NJSA 104-13 resolution should correspond to the amount of detail that the Board and its
attorney predict will be publicly disclosed in the closed meetingrsquos minutes when those minutes
are made public
The standard that the Board is to use when determining how much information about a
personnel matter is to be disclosed in the closed sessionrsquos minutes is set forth in South Jersey
Publishing Company Inc v New Jersey Expressway Authority 124 NJ 478 (1991) That
standard is that a) the public needs information if it is properly fulfill its role of evaluating the
wisdom of governmental action or a decision not to act b) that New Jerseys strong public
policy requires that a public bodyrsquos actions and decisions to not act be disclosed in the bodys
closed meeting minutes along with sufficient facts and information to permit the public to
understand and appraise the reasonableness of the bodys determination and c) to the extent a
cognizable privacy interest may be compromised by the required disclosure the extent of
disclosure may be modified through redactions of the minutes provided the public interest in
disclosure is not subverted
2 NJSA104-12(b)(7) is to prevent adverse parties to litigation and contracts from learning the details of the
public bodyrsquos negotiation tactics and litigation strategy3 See the discussion in Paff v Washington Township Docket No MER-L-2205-07 and Nevin v Asbury Park City
Board 2005 WL 2847974 (App Div November 1 2005) which are on-line at
httpogtfarchiveorgOGTFWashingtonpdf (Nevin begins at page 44 of the PDF file at the link)
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 37 of 77
4
Thus regardless of whether the Board disciplines Ms Smith or chooses to not impose
discipline due to her lateness the outcome should be recorded in the closed meeting minutes
The question of whether that entry in the minutes should be redacted before the minutes are
made public requires a balancing of Ms Smithrsquos interest in keeping the disciplinary matter
private against the publicrsquos interest in effectively monitoring the Board If the Board with
counselrsquos advice determines after balancing these interests that the outcome will be published
unredacted in the closed sessionrsquos minutes (ie if the minutes will disclose to the public eg that
ldquoMs Smith was suspended for three days on account of her habitual latenessrdquo) then the exact
nature of the matter (ie that ldquothe Board will discuss disciplining Ms Smith for excessive
latenessrdquo) should be set forth in the closed meetingrsquos NJSA 104-13 resolution Inversely if the
Board determines that Ms Smithrsquos privacy interest exceeds the publicrsquos right to know then less
information (eg ldquothe Board will discuss disciplining an employee for excessive latenessrdquo)
should be set forth in the closed meetingrsquos NJSA 104-13 resolution
In other words if the officer or employee being discussed doesnt have a privacy interest
sufficient to withstand a citizens request for the executive session minutes why should not the
public know the topic of the executive session prior to it occurring
Irsquove attached as Exhibit pages 1 -3 is a model resolution that I would like the Board to
use in the future
Issue 2 Executive Session minutes
Attached as Exhibit Page 4 as an example are the Boardrsquos July 28 2010 executive session
minutes It is troubling that a meeting that lasted over an hour is being summed up in a single
sentence ldquoMr Phil Stern addressed the Board of Education about personnel issuesrdquo These
minutes are not ldquoreasonably comprehensiblerdquo as required by NJSA 104-14
The purpose of closed meeting minutes is not merely to inform the public of whatoccurred during the private session but also to create a record for the Board membersthemselves A Board member who is newly elected in 2012 should be able by referringsolely to the minutes to figure out what issues the Board addressed during any previouslyheld closed meeting This hypothetical Board member after reading the July 28 2010closed minutes could not possibly figure out which employees or officials Mr Stern wastalking about
Better practice would be to record closed minutes that are much morecomprehensive but to redact that material that must be shielded from public view Forexample the minutes could have said
Mr Stern addressed the Board of Education about the habitualtardiness of 2nd grade teacher Mary Doe and her propensity to eatlibrary paste and scream hysterically during fire drills Herecommended that she be sent for psychiatric evaluation
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 38 of 77
5
Of course if a member of the public requested these hypothetical minutes the Boardmay need to redact them in order to protect privacy interests The point however is thatregardless of whether unredacted closed meeting minutes are ever released to the publicthey should contain sufficient details so that the Board members themselves can monthsor years later know what was discussed
Attached as Exhibit pages 5 ndash 9 is an order recently entered in Schmidt et al v City of
Gloucester City et al Docket No CAM-L-1287-11 As you can see paraA(3) supports my position
that the Boardrsquos minutes are not ldquoreasonably comprehensiblerdquo as required by law
Conclusion
Since some public bodies do not take my requests for Meetings Act compliance seriously
I regret having to inform the Board that I will sue for declaratory and injunctive relief in
accordance with NJSA 104-16 unless I receive assurances from the Boardmdashwithin a few days
after its May 10 2011 meetingmdashthat it will work in good faith to improve the amount of
information in both its closed session resolutions and minutes If the Boardrsquos agenda is already
set for the May 10 2011 meeting please at least acknowledge this letter and let me know the
date of the meeting at which it will be considered
Thank you very much for your attention to this matter I look forward to hearing from
you
Sincerely
John Paff
cc Philip E Stern Esq w enc (via e-mail to psternasgllawcom )
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 39 of 77
RUNNEMEDE BOARD OF EDUCATIONRESOLUTION NO ___________
AUTHORIZING EXECUTIVE SESSION
WHEREAS while the Sen Byron M Baer Open Public Meetings Act (NJSA 104-6 et seq) requires allmeetings of the Runnemede Board of Education to be held in public NJSA 104-12(b) sets forth nine (9)types of matters that may lawfully be discussed in ldquoExecutive Sessionrdquo ie without the public beingpermitted to attend and
WHEREAS the Runnemede Board of Education has determined that _____ (insert number) issues arepermitted by NJSA 104-12(b) to be discussed without the public in attendance shall be discussed duringan Executive Session to be held on _________________________ 20____ at _______ PM and
WHEREAS the nine (9) exceptions to public meetings set forth in NJSA 104-12(b) are listed below andnext to each exception is a box within which the number of issues to be privately discussed that fall withinthat exception shall be written and after each exception is a space where additional information that willdisclose as much information about the discussion as possible without undermining the purpose of theexception shall be written
ldquo(1) Any matter which by express provision of Federal law State statute or rule of courtshall be rendered confidential or excluded from public discussionrdquo The legal citation to theprovision(s) at issue is__________________________ and the nature of the matter described asspecifically as possible without undermining the need for confidentiality is _______________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(2) Any matter in which the release of information would impair a right to receive fundsfrom the federal governmentrdquo The nature of the matter described as specifically as possiblewithout undermining the need for confidentiality is _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(3) Any material the disclosure of which constitutes an unwarranted invasion of individualprivacy such as any records data reports recommendations or other personal material ofany educational training social service medical health custodial child protectionrehabilitation legal defense welfare housing relocation insurance and similar program orinstitution operated by a public body pertaining to any specific individual admitted to orserved by such institution or program including but not limited to information relative tothe individuals personal and family circumstances and any material pertaining toadmission discharge treatment progress or condition of any individual unless theindividual concerned (or in the case of a minor or incompetent his guardian) shall requestin writing that the same be disclosed publiclyrdquo The nature of the matter described asspecifically as possible without undermining the need for confidentiality is______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(4) Any collective bargaining agreement or the terms and conditions of which are proposedfor inclusion in any collective bargaining agreement including the negotiation of terms andconditions with employees or representatives of employees of the public bodyrdquo The collectivebargaining contract(s) discussed are between the Board and ____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Exhibit Page 1Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 40 of 77
ldquo(5) Any matter involving the purchase lease or acquisition of real property with publicfunds the setting of bank rates or investment of public funds where it could adversely affectthe public interest if discussion of such matters were disclosedrdquo The nature of the matterdescribed as specifically as possible without undermining the need for confidentiality is____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(6) Any tactics and techniques utilized in protecting the safety and property of the publicprovided that their disclosure could impair such protection Any investigations of violationsor possible violations of the lawrdquo The nature of the matter described as specifically as possiblewithout undermining the need for confidentiality is ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(7) Any pending or anticipated litigation or contract negotiation in which the public body isor may become a party Any matters falling within the attorney-client privilege to the extentthat confidentiality is required in order for the attorney to exercise his ethicalduties as a lawyerrdquo The parties to and docket numbers of each item of litigation andor theparties to each contract discussed are __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ andnature of the discussion described as specifically as possible without undermining the need forconfidentiality is ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(8) Any matter involving the employment appointment termination of employment termsand conditions of employment evaluation of the performance promotion or disciplining ofany specific prospective public officer or employee or current public officer or employeeemployed or appointed by the public body unless all individual employees or appointees whoserights could be adversely affected request in writing that such matter or matters be discussed ata public meetingrdquo Subject to the balancing of the publicrsquos interest and the employeersquos privacyrights under South Jersey Publishing Co v New Jersey Expressway Authority 124 NJ 478 theemployee(s) and nature of the discussion described as specifically as possible withoutundermining the need for confidentiality are _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(9) Any deliberation of a public body occurring after a public hearing that may result in theimposition of a specific civil penalty upon the responding party or the suspension or loss of alicense or permit belonging to the responding party as a result of an act of omission forwhich the responding party bears responsibilityrdquo The nature of the matter described asspecifically as possible without undermining the need for confidentiality is______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
WHEREAS the length of the Executive Session is estimated to be ________ minutes after which the publicmeeting of the Board shall (circle one) reconvene and immediately adjourn or reconvene and proceed withbusiness
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Runnemede Board of Education will go into ExecutiveSession for only the above stated reasons
Exhibit Page 2Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 41 of 77
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board hereby declares that its discussion of the aforementionedsubject(s) will be made public at a time when the publicrsquos interest in disclosure is greater than any privacy orgovernmental interest being protected from disclosure For each of the above items the estimated date bywhich such disclosure can be made andor the occurrence that needs to take place before disclosure can bemade are listed below (attach separate sheet if necessary)
Subject of Discussion Estimated Date Necessary Occurrence
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Clerk at the present public meeting shall read aloud enough ofthis resolution so that members of the public in attendance can understand as precisely as possible thenature of the matters that will privately discussed
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Clerk on the next business day following this meeting shallfurnish a copy of this resolution to any member of the public who requests one at the fees allowed byNJSA 471A-1 et seq
_________________________________Board President
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS ATRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTIONAPPROVED BY THE RUNNEMEDE BOARD OF EDUCATION AT ITSPUBLIC MEETING HELD ON ______________________20___
_______________________________________Board Secretary
Exhibit Page 3Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 42 of 77
Exhibit Page 4Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 43 of 77
Exhibit Page 5Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 44 of 77
Exhibit Page 6Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 45 of 77
Exhibit Page 7Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 46 of 77
Exhibit Page 8Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 47 of 77
Exhibit Page 9Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 48 of 77
Subject Records RequestFrom John Paff ltpaffpoboxcomgtDate Sat 07 May 2011 161444 -0400To vcarmodyrunnemedeschoolsorgCC psternasgllawcom
Ms Carmody
Please accept this e-mail as my request for government records inaccordance with the Open Public Records Act (OPRA) and the commonlaw right of access Please respond and send all responsivedocuments to me via e-mail at paffpoboxcom If e-mail is notpossible please fax responses and responsive records to me at908-325-0129 Also I would appreciate it if you wouldacknowledge your receipt of this e-mail
Background
In response to a records request I recently received redactedexecutive session minutes for the following dates July 28 2010(first session) August 26 2010 February 2 2011 February 232011 (two sessions) and March 2 2011 Although Mr Stern providedme with a sheet entitled Documents Exempt From OPRA request thatpurports to explain these redactions I am still unclear as to whythe matter was redacted and whether it was lawfully redacted
First I dont understand references such as NJSA 471A-11(12)(c) The version of OPRA that I have (plus every other oneIve seen) does not have internal numbers within NJSA471A-11 Am I correct that NJSA 471A-11(12)(c) isintended to refer to the exemption for records in connection withcollective negotiations including documents and statements ofstrategy or negotiating position and that NJSA 471A-11(7)is intended to refer to any record within the attorney-clientprivilege This paragraph shall not be construed as exempting fromaccess attorney or consultant bills or invoices except that suchbills or invoices may be redacted to remove any informationprotected by the attorney-client privilege Please advise
Second even if I correctly corresponded the claimed exemptions tothe OPRA statute I have no way of knowing whether the mattersredacted are actually exempt from access When a custodiansuppresses any portion of any requested record NJSA471A-5(g) requires him or her to state the ldquospecific basisrdquo foreach suppressed element Beyond stating the ldquospecific basisrdquo foreach suppressed element he or she is required to ldquoproduce
Records Request
1 of 2 622011 810 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 49 of 77
specific reliable evidence sufficient to meet a statutorilyrecognized basis for confidentialityrdquo Courier News v HunterdonCounty Prosecutorrsquos Office 358 NJ Super 373 382-83 (App Div2003) Further he or she must explain each suppression in amanner that ldquowill enable other parties to assess the applicabilityof the privilege or protectionrdquo Paff v New Jersey Department ofLabor Board of Review 379 NJ Super 346 354-55 (2005)(quoting R 410-2(e))
Records requested
Runnemede Board of Education minutes for the following dates July28 2010 (728 pm session only) August 26 2010 February 22011 February 23 2011 (both sessions) and March 2 2011 Iwould like these minutes redacted as narrowly as possible if atall For each redaction I request a written explanation thatmeets the requirements of the case law cited above
cc Phil Stern
Records Request
2 of 2 622011 810 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 50 of 77
Subject Re Fwd Runnemede Board of Education Open PublicMeetings ActFrom John Paff ltpaffpoboxcomgtDate Mon 09 May 2011 134726 -0400To Nancy Ward ltnwardrunnemedeschoolsorggt
Thank you
On 592011 116 PM Nancy Ward wrote
Mr Paff
The Board has named me Custodian of Records Please direct allfuturecommunication to me The May 10 2011 meeting is theRe-organization ofthe Runnemede Board of Education The agenda is set and is verycomprehensive I intend to defer the letter and any discussionregardingits content to the next regular meeting the date of which willbe setat the re-organization tomorrow night In keeping with thedistrictsmeeting pattern that will be May 25 2011
Nancy BWard EdD
Superintendent of Schools
-----Original Message-----From John PaffSent 572011 42300 PMTo nwardrunnemedeschoolsorgCc vcarmodyrunnemedeschoolsorg psternasgllawcomSubject Fwd Runnemede Board of Education Open Public MeetingsAct
Here is another e-mail in case my original one should have beendirected to Ms Ward and not Ms Carmody
JP
-------- Original Message --------Subject Runnemede Board of Education Open Public Meetings ActDate Sat 07 May 2011 152319 -0400From John Paff
Re Fwd Runnemede Board of Education Open Public Meetings Act
1 of 2 622011 811 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 51 of 77
Reply-To paffpoboxcomTo vcarmodyrunnemedeschoolsorg psternasgllawcom
Ms Carmody and Mr Stern
Attached is a letter that I would like the Board to consider atits May10 2011 meeting Would you please a) acknowledge receipt of theletterand b) distribute it to all the Board members
Note that the last paragraph of the letter indicates that I willfilesuit against the Board if the issues in the letter arentaddressedSo if the Boards agenda for the May 10th meeting is so tightthat myletter cannot be accommodated please advise me of such andprovide ameeting date where my letter will be addressed so that I knowthat I amnot being ignored
Thank you
John Paff ChairmanNew Jersey Libertarian PartysOpen Government Advocacy Project
Re Fwd Runnemede Board of Education Open Public Meetings Act
2 of 2 622011 811 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 52 of 77
Subject OPRA RequestFrom Philip Stern ltpsternasgllawcomgtDate Fri 20 May 2011 161015 -0500To paffpoboxcom ltpaffpoboxcomgtCC Nancy Ward ltnwardrunnemedeschoolsorggt
Mr Paff please find attached to this email a response to your request forbusiness records Please note that in providing you with the attachedrecords the Runnemede Borough Board of Education waives no rightsregarding the attorney-client privilege Do not hesitate to call me if youhave any questions Phil Stern
Philip E SternAdams Stern Gutierrez amp Lattiboudere LLCThe Legal Center1037 Raymond Blvd Suite 710Newark New Jersey 07102(973) 735-2742 (office telephone)(201) 914-2415 (cellular telephone)(973) 735-2743 (office telefax)
May 20 Paff responsepdf
Content-DescriptionMay 20 Paffresponsepdf
Content-Type applicationpdf
Content-Encoding base64
OPRA Request
1 of 1 622011 815 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 53 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 54 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 55 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 56 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 57 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 58 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 59 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 60 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 61 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 62 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 63 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 64 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 65 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 66 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 67 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 68 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 69 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 70 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 71 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 72 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 73 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 74 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 75 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 76 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 77 of 77
- Civil Complaint
- Exhibits
-
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 10 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 11 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 12 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 13 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 14 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 15 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 16 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 17 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 18 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 19 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 20 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 21 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 22 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 23 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 24 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 25 of 77
Idled officials payout riles Runnemede
By BARBARA S ROTHSCHILD bull Courier-Post Staff bull March 5 2011
RUNNEMEDE mdash Although the school district is paying Business Administrator Kelly PetersBrazelton her full salary to stay home while paying for an interim employee RunnemedeSuperintendent Nancy Ward said it could have cost more not to have a separationagreement
New Jersey is a very litigious state she said In order to avoid litigation which neveris a good thing a separation agreement gives you a certain outcome
Brazelton a Deptford resident and the former business administrator for the SomerdalePublic School District began working for Runnemede schools in August 2008 Her mostrecent contract for July 1 2010 through June 30 is for $99465 plus benefits
But the relationship soured and the district would not comment on specifics citingconfidentiality
A letter from staff members written to Ward and the school board in July 2010 gaveexamples of a hostile work environment that they said was created by the businessadministrator
Brazelton could not be reached Her attorney Joseph Betley of Mount Laurel said hisclient signed the separation agreement in good faith
There was a disagreement between the board and Kelly he said It was resolved andboth sides decided to move on
She disputes any and all allegations regarding a hostile work environment It wassimply Kelly doing her job
The separation agreement and release dated Oct 20 stipulates Brazelton be placed ona paid leave of absence from Sept 23 to April 15 at which time she would irrevocablyresign
School board President Colleen Kurth said it was much easier to go with a separationagreement than pay more legal fees
She compared paying Brazelton to paying a teacher out sick while a substitute fills in
The job just has to go on Kurth said
Interim Business Administrator Valerie Carmody who retired from the same post in EastGreenwich last year was hired Dec 1 at $60 per hour 24 hours maximum per weekHer contract ends June 30
New Jersey School Boards Association spokesman Mike Yaple said such separationagreements are infrequent
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 26 of 77
No school board willingly enters into an agreement like this he insisted But eventhough its not a popular decision its the lesser of two evils
Residents unhappy about the districts handling of the situation include Dan Conard ajournalism student at Rowan University Conard writes a blog where he discusses schooldistrict and municipal matters To comment on this topic he filed Open Public RecordsAct (OPRA) document requests
I just wanted to get it out there so people know what is going on Conard said
Ward said she has no quarrel with the student but believes Brazeltons case is anunusual circumstance
It (the separation agreement) was the most responsible thing the district could havedone she insisted Was it a bitter pill to swallow It took the board (a while) beforethey felt it was something they could do but it makes the most sense
Ward said the part-time arrangement with Carmody is working out well and that as thedistrict improves efficiency it is unlikely another full-time business administrator will behired particularly when Executive County Superintendent Peggy Nicolosi has advisedagainst it
Among the options being considered are another part-time business administrator or ashared-service agreement with another district
Ward said she would have preferred the money being expended in this case be spent oneducational programs and teachers particularly this year
Although voters passed Runnemedes 2010-11 budget while many others were defeatedlast April the district of 853 students in K-8 lost six staffers and streamlined its gifted-and-talented program after state aid was cut
Ward also defended the decision to keep a maintenance techniciansupervisor positioncreated in 2008 noting it has saved at least $145000 each year
Mark Speck of Voorhees earns $50000 in the post Through June 2010 it was filled byDoug McGarry a former building and grounds supervisor in the Somerdale district Heearned $60000 in Runnemede but had more experience than Speck Ward said
Before Brazelton arrived in Runnemede the business administrator also served asmaintenance supervisor Ward said that actually cost the district more because it had topay outside maintenance workers sometimes for faulty work
Many things had been done to the facilities that were not to the boards satisfactionshe said That first year with our own maintenance person we saved $145000 becausewe hired a person who fixed things
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 27 of 77
Speck works with vendors going over bids and quotes and also does minor repairs thatno longer have to be paid for piecemeal Ward said the position is staying in the 2011-2012 budget adopted preliminarily on Wednesday
Hes the guy whos here at 4 am making sure weve got snow plows when we needthem Ward said Hes dirty and sweaty -- and hes excellent
Ward said the budget sent to the county includes a $78 annual tax increase for theowner of a home assessed at the $97800 borough average but does not cut staff orprograms
Kurth hopes to tweak the budget and lower the tax hike before it is introduced to thepublic on March 23 But she agreed the maintenance supervisor will stay
That was an investment on the part of the school district Kurth said
Reach Barbara S Rothschild at (856) 486-2416 or barothschildcamdengannettcom
--Comments
User Imageamonkeycoulddoit wroteThe mayor cant hear you because she doesnt even know how to turn on a computerNot that it was a requirement that the mayor should know how to use one I think theonly requirement is that they have a pulse And she does but barely372011 12406 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imageamonkeycoulddoit wroteTo sickofpolsnj it does seem that snoopysam has some inside information And whenyou say hows that mayors race looking I hope that you dont mean that someone fromthe disfunctional school board is going to run for mayor or council or some other electedposition considering the mess that they made on the school board372011 11832 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imageamonkeycoulddoit wroteIf the school board president had listened to staff when the hostil work enviroment issuestarted then she might not be in this pickle She should have spent the money on thelegal fees because if everything is true about the hostile enviroment then they wouldhave won the lawsuit hands down and not had to pay out anything and gotten their legalfees back Another example of elected officials not capable of doing the job they are inLets hope that some people come out of the woodwork to run for school board peoplewho care about the kids and the taxpayers372011 11309 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imageamonkeycoulddoit wrote
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 28 of 77
The school boad is not as inept as the mayor and council You dont have to be a collegegraduate or or even be able to read or write to get an elected position in runnemedeThe 2 new council members got elected because the are involved in the union andeveryone who supports the union came out to vote And the new mayor must have a lotof friends But now after the few months they have been in office it is clear to see thatthey are not able to handle the job Mayor14 is right that the people of Runnemedevoted because they thought they would get something in return for their vote but itlooks like they were wrong In the upcoming elections for school board and council votefor the person who will do the best job whether you like them or not Dont just vote forsomeone because you are told to372011 10214 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagethemayor14 wrotei am so glad this article was written and it clearly points out how inept the runnemedeboard of education actually is the board of education is not elected based on businessand education talent the elections are nothing more than a popularity contest i dontknow how other towns operate but runnemede boro is a total joke when it come toelections be it school board or general elections i wish everyone would get their headsout of their A$$ and truly investigate the school board canidates that are running forelection VOTE WITH YOUR HEAD NOT WITH YOUR HEART362011 91350 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagesavetheschools wroteSeveral people are running for the board for four open seats I signed a petition todayfor a new woman running Members are not paid If you live in Runnemede shopstewardyou have until Tuesday to get a petition submitted I asked and found out there is only 5people on average at the BOE meetings every month in Runnemede I hope more peoplestart to go I plan on it myself And we all need to go every month not just when weread negative press about our schools That is the only way we would all stay informedand not rely on the young man submitting OPRA requests Our town has always beenabout the kids and it needs to get back that way362011 80936 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser ImageShopsteward wroteWhy did it take one young man sending in OPRA requests to bring all this to lightWhy are you relying upon him to get to the bottom of it You say The other members(except for the one who was just arrested and resigned) are good people and didnothing wrong to the district and that might be true except for the fact that theyallowed that incredible salary and benefits to be given out and even though all kinds ofrumors were flying around it took an outsider with OPRA requests to bring this ghastlypimple to a head Sounds more like none of them are doing their jobs and should be outof office and off the payroll They should all just resign They arent doing the job thatwas assigned to them362011 32559 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Image
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 29 of 77
Shopsteward wroteA crime was committed here It began with a violation of the Publics trust by the peoplewho allowed this contract to be signed in the first place What a jokeHow many moreof these jobs are hidden in the budgets of our Schools There needs to be a thouroughcleaning of all thses tyeps of employees everywhere At the State County Municipaland Scool board level and the appointed Authorities too Everyone screams about theUnions but whenever you hear of some great big abuse it turns out the person wasnteven in the UnionClean up this mess first Mr Christie before yougo after the little guys It will save us all a lot more money362011 101606 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser ImageShopsteward wroteI still dont get itHow is a part time24 hr a week job worth so much This is aprime example of the waste that is giving the public workers a bad nameThe onlyproblem is it isnt some Union personIts management and its the same all over This isjust the tip of the iceberg they scream about the Unions but the real waste is in jobs likethis oneNo way this job or the thousands of others like it should be paid so well99465 PLUS BENEFITS incrediblethere should be a lawandthe person gets a pension based on that bloated salarytooThere should be other people losing their jobs not for theseperation aggreement but for letting this evenhappen352011 101125 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagethesplits wroteI guess this is Runnemedes version of a shared service352011 73450 PM
User Imagethesplits wroteLooks like its the same old Runnemede and I thought we voted for change Mayor352011 73202 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagesavetheschools wroteFrom what I understand and I live in town the board went into this separationagreement because the BA would have had a potential lawsuit and it would have costthe school district and tax payers a ton of money Much more than they are spendingnow And yes it is one school board member who was apparently corrupt Just one Theyoung man who was mentioned in the article has been OPRA requesting items and willget to the bottom of this situation with the former BA and the certain board memberBut that is just one person The other members (except for the one who was justarrested and resigned) are good people and did nothing wrong to the district Thisformer BA and her friend who was hired as the maint supervisor have been a hot topicfor a few years Ask the employees they were awful and needed to go It is awful thatthis money was not spent on our children It was a trainwreck from the beginning and ifI recall correctly when the hiring took place only one of the members voted no and that
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 30 of 77
was the local high school teacher metioned in another post Runnemede schools arefantastic and maybe the new people running for election will get some answers andmake some changes And maybe the BOE member who was mentioned by employees asbeing the reason why there could be a possible lawsuit should just resign I understandadmin make good money but they also need to be accountable for their actions and ifthe BA made a hostile environment and was supported by one BOE member both shouldbe gonenot just the BA352011 33207 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagecookmom wroteWhere is Gov Christies veto power352011 30321 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagecookmom wroteThis all happened with a local police officer and a FOP member and local high schoolteacher and member of the NJEA on the board The Runnemede Board is looking alotlike the DRPA and was this group picked by the new Mayor352011 30042 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagesickofpolsnj wroteThe real truth is the Board of Education member and Brazelton and the unethicalsituation that THEY created The questionable contracts and underhanded deals There isa certain Board Member that hopes that this ends here well it doesnt There is not aTeacher or employee in Runnemede Schools that would defend Brazelton same goes forSomerdale And many are willing to bring out MANY of the things that Brazelton did todestroy the district The ENTIRE Runnemede School Community is thrilled that Brazeltonis gone Snoopysam is clearly one of two people Kelly or the Board Member shouldwe name names Hows that Mayors race looking352011 114254 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser ImageShopsteward wrote$99465 plus benefits How much does she pay for her share of those benefitsor are they free to her Her replacement only works 24 hours a week are we being toldthat she got that much money for a part time job What is the matter with theidiots that hired her to begin withNo one should get that kind of money for a part timeThat is an awful lot of money for that kind of job We should not be surprised at all Thiskind of thing is everywhere in Camden CountyIts the NORMAL way of doingbusiness352011 113922 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagelookfar111 wroteYep same old story hire someone for $98000 when 10 equally qualified people woulddo it for 60k with a 20 year top out at 75 k Then a sweetheart adios gift And the cherry
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 31 of 77
on top Another tax increase for the people God I hate what the democrat machinehave done to this once great state352011 111649 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser ImageSnoopysam wrotesickofpolsnj you must be on ot those employees that Brazelton held accountable forHER actions You are right there is so much more to this story and when the real truthscome out there will be some emplopyeesadministratorsboard members hanging theirheads in shame Talk about wasting taxpayer dollars take a look at some of the lazyincompetent employees that Brazelton had to deal withand their HUGE mistakes thathad to be corrected which cost the taxpayers thousands upon thousands of dollars352011 94250 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagesickofpolsnj wroteYou are exactly correct A teacher would never get a sweatheart deal like this I wonderwhich Board Member it was that was mentioned in that letter Did you read the blog thatthis all came out on it has way more details than this articlehttpdansviewrunnemedewordpresscom352011 92934 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagesickofpolsnj wroteOnly thing is Runnemede never had these issues Somerdale had the same EXACT issueswith Brazelton Administrators arent allowed to comment however talk to the teachersand employees off record they will tell you all about Kelly352011 92726 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagesickofpolsnj wroteThere is so much more to this story I hope the CP will run a follow up 1 Look into therealtionship and hiring surrounding Doug the maintenance supervisor 2 Check intoBrazeltons past employment Somerdale Schools 3 Brazelton is rumored to be hired atthe completion of the settlement in Deptford 4 Look into unethical practices between aBoard Member and Brazelton 5 And what about the other Board member that wasrecently charged with a serious crime352011 92315 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imageicallbullschit wroteOnce again the government tries to pin their mistakes on an individual when they screwup royally What the paper fails to report is the other side Maybe years and years ofmismanagement and patronage were uncovered and it became a hostile environmentwhen people got called on their actions and the same old routine was stopped Maybethe school board realized it would be cheaper to pay one than to pay many for theirmistakes Maybe the school board was willing to pay in order to keep their dirty littlesecrets covered up Maybe the resident should look deeper into the actions of the schoolboard and the rest of the administration Maybe I am wrong but it seems that the board
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 32 of 77
got called on some issues and now they are attacking one individual to cover theirtracks They seem to be acting like the GREAT WIZARD OF OZ Pay no attention to theidiots behind the curtain we are the all powerful and all knowing school board Pull backthe curtain people because there are people behind there that are faking their waythrough and going to wind up costing the district millions Just saying352011 85642 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagecookmom wroteSchool board President Colleen Kurth said it was much easier to go with a separationagreement than pay more legal fees She compared paying Brazelton to paying ateacher out sick while a substitute fills in The job just has to go on Kurth said I amconfused A teacher out SICK is NOT the same as a HOSTILE work enviorment How cana medical condition be compared to a person being accused of a hostile workenviorment A teacher would be REQUIRED to use their sick days~ since this is beingcompared to an illness ~was Brazelton REQUIRED to give up her sickvacation pay orwas that part of the dealWas she also paid for those days Wouldnt we all love to becollecting a salary from two towns As now she is being paid by Runnemde AND acurrent SCHOOL district where she is currently employed THIS is the waste in ourSchool districts352011 83552 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imageneocon wroteShe is part of the Protected Classes All you need to know is that she is better thanyou so just keep moveing along Nothing to see here352011 81912 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report Abuse
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 33 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 34 of 77
New Jersey Libertarian PartyOpen Government Advocacy Project
John Paff Chairman
PO Box 5424
Somerset NJ 08875-5424
Phone 732-873-1251 - Fax 908-325-0129
Email lpsmcpoboxcom
May 7 2011
Hon Colleen Kurth President and members of the
Runnemede Board of Education
505 W Third Ave
Runnemede NJ 08078 (via e-mail to vcarmodyrunnemedeschoolsorg )
Dear President Kurth and Board members
I write both individually and on behalf the New Jersey Libertarian Partys Open
Government Advocacy Project to comment on 1) the manner in which the Board of Education
goes into nonpublic (ie executive or closed) session and 2) the level of detail contained within
the Boardrsquos executive session minutes
Issue 1 Executive Session resolutions
As you are aware the Senator Byron M Baer Open Public Meetings Act requires public
bodies such as the Runnemede Board of Education to publicly pass a resolution before
excluding the public from a meeting The statute that requires the resolution states
NJSA 104-13mdashClosed meetings resolution to conduct
No public body shall exclude the public from any meeting to discuss any
matter described in subsection 7 b (104-12) until the public body shall
first adopt a resolution at a meeting to which the public shall be admitted
a Stating the general nature of the subject to be discussed and
b Stating as precisely as possible the time when and the circumstances
under which the discussion conducted in closed session of the public body
can be disclosed to the public
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 35 of 77
2
By way of a recent records request I received resolutions which purport to authorize
executive sessions intended to be held by the Board of Education on July 28 2010 (2 sessions)
August 20 2010 February 2 1011 February 23 2011 (2 sessions) and March 2 2011 Those
resolutions which are virtually identical to each other state
Executive Session to discuss student matters personnel contractual and
legal matters [time and a statement as to whether action will be
taken]
[identity of maker of motion etc]
Resolved that pursuant to Section 8 of the Public Meetings Act the public
shall be excluded from that portion of the meeting involving the discussion
of personnel legal and contractual matters Further resolved that
discussion of such subject matters discussed in Executive Session can be
disclosed to public upon official action if any at the conclusion of the
executive session or at a public session at some later date
I dont think that this form of resolution satisfies NJSA 104-13 because it gives the
public no real sense of what is being privately discussed1 To paraphrase the highest court of of
another state a body which only announces ldquolegal mattersrdquo or ldquopersonnel negotiationsrdquo for
going into executive session has said nothing It might has well have stated to the audience
ldquoLadies and gentlemen we are going into executive sessionrdquo and stopped there Hinds County
Board of Supervisors v Common Cause of Mississippi 551 So2d 107 114 (MS 1989)
Of course there can be no dispute that the Board of Education often has legitimate
reasons to meet in nonpublic session Among these reasons is the need to prevent the adverse
parties in litigation or contract negotiations from gaining an unfair advantage and to allow
members of the governing body to debate and deliberate personnel matters without public
scrutiny or participation But the need to discuss matters privately should not prevent the
public from being informed as precisely as possible of the topics that are being privately
discussed
For example suppose that Runnemede Board is being sued by a Mr Jones who was
injured after he slipped and fell on what he claims to be negligently maintained school
property Since the lawsuit is already a public record there is no public purpose served by
vaguely describing a private discussion of it as ldquostudent matters personnel contractual and
legal mattersrdquo Rather the resolution should at the very least describe the private discussion as
1 In January 2007 when I most recently litigated this issue Middlesex County Superior Court Judge Alexander P
Waugh issued a written decision in which he agreed with other court decisions that closed session resolutions
should contain as much information as is consistent with full public knowledge without doing any harm to the
public interest Judge Waughs decision and other case documents are on the Web at
httpogtfarchiveorgOGTFMonroeBOEWebreadypdf
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 36 of 77
3
ldquoDiscussion of slip and fall negligence suit Jones v Runnemede Board Docket No CAM-L-
012345-11rdquo This way the public has a very good sense of what the Boardrsquos private discussion is
about while the ability of the Board to develop its lawsuit strategy is not undermined
Using the same example suppose that Jonesrsquo attorney sent the Boardrsquos attorney an offer
to fully settle the lawsuit upon the Boardrsquos payment of $20000 While the Board would
obviously need to discuss how to respond to the offer in private lest Jones or his attorney
would be in the audience witnessing the discussion there is no reason why the public cannot be
informed in the NJSA 104-13 resolution that the Board will meet in private to discuss ldquoa
settlement offer received from the Plaintiff in the slip and fall negligence suit known as Jones v
Runnemede Board Docket No CAM-L-012345-11 in which the Plaintiff offers to settle the suit
in exchange for the Board paying him $20000rdquo While it may initially seem that this would
provide ldquotoo muchrdquo information to the public this concern disappears once it is realized that
the sole purpose of the exception2 that allows litigation matters to be discussed in private is to
keep the adverse party to the litigation in the dark regarding the Boardrsquos position3 Since in this
example the adverse party (ie Jones) already knows that he offered to settle the lawsuit for
$20000 there is no legitimate reason why the public should not also know of the tendered
settlement offer
As another example suppose that a personnel matter such as whether or not a Mrs
Smith a public works employee should be disciplined because of repeatedly arriving late to
work is to be discussed in closed session In such a case the amount of detail set forth in the
NJSA 104-13 resolution should correspond to the amount of detail that the Board and its
attorney predict will be publicly disclosed in the closed meetingrsquos minutes when those minutes
are made public
The standard that the Board is to use when determining how much information about a
personnel matter is to be disclosed in the closed sessionrsquos minutes is set forth in South Jersey
Publishing Company Inc v New Jersey Expressway Authority 124 NJ 478 (1991) That
standard is that a) the public needs information if it is properly fulfill its role of evaluating the
wisdom of governmental action or a decision not to act b) that New Jerseys strong public
policy requires that a public bodyrsquos actions and decisions to not act be disclosed in the bodys
closed meeting minutes along with sufficient facts and information to permit the public to
understand and appraise the reasonableness of the bodys determination and c) to the extent a
cognizable privacy interest may be compromised by the required disclosure the extent of
disclosure may be modified through redactions of the minutes provided the public interest in
disclosure is not subverted
2 NJSA104-12(b)(7) is to prevent adverse parties to litigation and contracts from learning the details of the
public bodyrsquos negotiation tactics and litigation strategy3 See the discussion in Paff v Washington Township Docket No MER-L-2205-07 and Nevin v Asbury Park City
Board 2005 WL 2847974 (App Div November 1 2005) which are on-line at
httpogtfarchiveorgOGTFWashingtonpdf (Nevin begins at page 44 of the PDF file at the link)
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 37 of 77
4
Thus regardless of whether the Board disciplines Ms Smith or chooses to not impose
discipline due to her lateness the outcome should be recorded in the closed meeting minutes
The question of whether that entry in the minutes should be redacted before the minutes are
made public requires a balancing of Ms Smithrsquos interest in keeping the disciplinary matter
private against the publicrsquos interest in effectively monitoring the Board If the Board with
counselrsquos advice determines after balancing these interests that the outcome will be published
unredacted in the closed sessionrsquos minutes (ie if the minutes will disclose to the public eg that
ldquoMs Smith was suspended for three days on account of her habitual latenessrdquo) then the exact
nature of the matter (ie that ldquothe Board will discuss disciplining Ms Smith for excessive
latenessrdquo) should be set forth in the closed meetingrsquos NJSA 104-13 resolution Inversely if the
Board determines that Ms Smithrsquos privacy interest exceeds the publicrsquos right to know then less
information (eg ldquothe Board will discuss disciplining an employee for excessive latenessrdquo)
should be set forth in the closed meetingrsquos NJSA 104-13 resolution
In other words if the officer or employee being discussed doesnt have a privacy interest
sufficient to withstand a citizens request for the executive session minutes why should not the
public know the topic of the executive session prior to it occurring
Irsquove attached as Exhibit pages 1 -3 is a model resolution that I would like the Board to
use in the future
Issue 2 Executive Session minutes
Attached as Exhibit Page 4 as an example are the Boardrsquos July 28 2010 executive session
minutes It is troubling that a meeting that lasted over an hour is being summed up in a single
sentence ldquoMr Phil Stern addressed the Board of Education about personnel issuesrdquo These
minutes are not ldquoreasonably comprehensiblerdquo as required by NJSA 104-14
The purpose of closed meeting minutes is not merely to inform the public of whatoccurred during the private session but also to create a record for the Board membersthemselves A Board member who is newly elected in 2012 should be able by referringsolely to the minutes to figure out what issues the Board addressed during any previouslyheld closed meeting This hypothetical Board member after reading the July 28 2010closed minutes could not possibly figure out which employees or officials Mr Stern wastalking about
Better practice would be to record closed minutes that are much morecomprehensive but to redact that material that must be shielded from public view Forexample the minutes could have said
Mr Stern addressed the Board of Education about the habitualtardiness of 2nd grade teacher Mary Doe and her propensity to eatlibrary paste and scream hysterically during fire drills Herecommended that she be sent for psychiatric evaluation
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 38 of 77
5
Of course if a member of the public requested these hypothetical minutes the Boardmay need to redact them in order to protect privacy interests The point however is thatregardless of whether unredacted closed meeting minutes are ever released to the publicthey should contain sufficient details so that the Board members themselves can monthsor years later know what was discussed
Attached as Exhibit pages 5 ndash 9 is an order recently entered in Schmidt et al v City of
Gloucester City et al Docket No CAM-L-1287-11 As you can see paraA(3) supports my position
that the Boardrsquos minutes are not ldquoreasonably comprehensiblerdquo as required by law
Conclusion
Since some public bodies do not take my requests for Meetings Act compliance seriously
I regret having to inform the Board that I will sue for declaratory and injunctive relief in
accordance with NJSA 104-16 unless I receive assurances from the Boardmdashwithin a few days
after its May 10 2011 meetingmdashthat it will work in good faith to improve the amount of
information in both its closed session resolutions and minutes If the Boardrsquos agenda is already
set for the May 10 2011 meeting please at least acknowledge this letter and let me know the
date of the meeting at which it will be considered
Thank you very much for your attention to this matter I look forward to hearing from
you
Sincerely
John Paff
cc Philip E Stern Esq w enc (via e-mail to psternasgllawcom )
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 39 of 77
RUNNEMEDE BOARD OF EDUCATIONRESOLUTION NO ___________
AUTHORIZING EXECUTIVE SESSION
WHEREAS while the Sen Byron M Baer Open Public Meetings Act (NJSA 104-6 et seq) requires allmeetings of the Runnemede Board of Education to be held in public NJSA 104-12(b) sets forth nine (9)types of matters that may lawfully be discussed in ldquoExecutive Sessionrdquo ie without the public beingpermitted to attend and
WHEREAS the Runnemede Board of Education has determined that _____ (insert number) issues arepermitted by NJSA 104-12(b) to be discussed without the public in attendance shall be discussed duringan Executive Session to be held on _________________________ 20____ at _______ PM and
WHEREAS the nine (9) exceptions to public meetings set forth in NJSA 104-12(b) are listed below andnext to each exception is a box within which the number of issues to be privately discussed that fall withinthat exception shall be written and after each exception is a space where additional information that willdisclose as much information about the discussion as possible without undermining the purpose of theexception shall be written
ldquo(1) Any matter which by express provision of Federal law State statute or rule of courtshall be rendered confidential or excluded from public discussionrdquo The legal citation to theprovision(s) at issue is__________________________ and the nature of the matter described asspecifically as possible without undermining the need for confidentiality is _______________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(2) Any matter in which the release of information would impair a right to receive fundsfrom the federal governmentrdquo The nature of the matter described as specifically as possiblewithout undermining the need for confidentiality is _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(3) Any material the disclosure of which constitutes an unwarranted invasion of individualprivacy such as any records data reports recommendations or other personal material ofany educational training social service medical health custodial child protectionrehabilitation legal defense welfare housing relocation insurance and similar program orinstitution operated by a public body pertaining to any specific individual admitted to orserved by such institution or program including but not limited to information relative tothe individuals personal and family circumstances and any material pertaining toadmission discharge treatment progress or condition of any individual unless theindividual concerned (or in the case of a minor or incompetent his guardian) shall requestin writing that the same be disclosed publiclyrdquo The nature of the matter described asspecifically as possible without undermining the need for confidentiality is______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(4) Any collective bargaining agreement or the terms and conditions of which are proposedfor inclusion in any collective bargaining agreement including the negotiation of terms andconditions with employees or representatives of employees of the public bodyrdquo The collectivebargaining contract(s) discussed are between the Board and ____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Exhibit Page 1Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 40 of 77
ldquo(5) Any matter involving the purchase lease or acquisition of real property with publicfunds the setting of bank rates or investment of public funds where it could adversely affectthe public interest if discussion of such matters were disclosedrdquo The nature of the matterdescribed as specifically as possible without undermining the need for confidentiality is____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(6) Any tactics and techniques utilized in protecting the safety and property of the publicprovided that their disclosure could impair such protection Any investigations of violationsor possible violations of the lawrdquo The nature of the matter described as specifically as possiblewithout undermining the need for confidentiality is ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(7) Any pending or anticipated litigation or contract negotiation in which the public body isor may become a party Any matters falling within the attorney-client privilege to the extentthat confidentiality is required in order for the attorney to exercise his ethicalduties as a lawyerrdquo The parties to and docket numbers of each item of litigation andor theparties to each contract discussed are __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ andnature of the discussion described as specifically as possible without undermining the need forconfidentiality is ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(8) Any matter involving the employment appointment termination of employment termsand conditions of employment evaluation of the performance promotion or disciplining ofany specific prospective public officer or employee or current public officer or employeeemployed or appointed by the public body unless all individual employees or appointees whoserights could be adversely affected request in writing that such matter or matters be discussed ata public meetingrdquo Subject to the balancing of the publicrsquos interest and the employeersquos privacyrights under South Jersey Publishing Co v New Jersey Expressway Authority 124 NJ 478 theemployee(s) and nature of the discussion described as specifically as possible withoutundermining the need for confidentiality are _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(9) Any deliberation of a public body occurring after a public hearing that may result in theimposition of a specific civil penalty upon the responding party or the suspension or loss of alicense or permit belonging to the responding party as a result of an act of omission forwhich the responding party bears responsibilityrdquo The nature of the matter described asspecifically as possible without undermining the need for confidentiality is______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
WHEREAS the length of the Executive Session is estimated to be ________ minutes after which the publicmeeting of the Board shall (circle one) reconvene and immediately adjourn or reconvene and proceed withbusiness
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Runnemede Board of Education will go into ExecutiveSession for only the above stated reasons
Exhibit Page 2Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 41 of 77
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board hereby declares that its discussion of the aforementionedsubject(s) will be made public at a time when the publicrsquos interest in disclosure is greater than any privacy orgovernmental interest being protected from disclosure For each of the above items the estimated date bywhich such disclosure can be made andor the occurrence that needs to take place before disclosure can bemade are listed below (attach separate sheet if necessary)
Subject of Discussion Estimated Date Necessary Occurrence
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Clerk at the present public meeting shall read aloud enough ofthis resolution so that members of the public in attendance can understand as precisely as possible thenature of the matters that will privately discussed
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Clerk on the next business day following this meeting shallfurnish a copy of this resolution to any member of the public who requests one at the fees allowed byNJSA 471A-1 et seq
_________________________________Board President
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS ATRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTIONAPPROVED BY THE RUNNEMEDE BOARD OF EDUCATION AT ITSPUBLIC MEETING HELD ON ______________________20___
_______________________________________Board Secretary
Exhibit Page 3Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 42 of 77
Exhibit Page 4Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 43 of 77
Exhibit Page 5Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 44 of 77
Exhibit Page 6Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 45 of 77
Exhibit Page 7Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 46 of 77
Exhibit Page 8Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 47 of 77
Exhibit Page 9Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 48 of 77
Subject Records RequestFrom John Paff ltpaffpoboxcomgtDate Sat 07 May 2011 161444 -0400To vcarmodyrunnemedeschoolsorgCC psternasgllawcom
Ms Carmody
Please accept this e-mail as my request for government records inaccordance with the Open Public Records Act (OPRA) and the commonlaw right of access Please respond and send all responsivedocuments to me via e-mail at paffpoboxcom If e-mail is notpossible please fax responses and responsive records to me at908-325-0129 Also I would appreciate it if you wouldacknowledge your receipt of this e-mail
Background
In response to a records request I recently received redactedexecutive session minutes for the following dates July 28 2010(first session) August 26 2010 February 2 2011 February 232011 (two sessions) and March 2 2011 Although Mr Stern providedme with a sheet entitled Documents Exempt From OPRA request thatpurports to explain these redactions I am still unclear as to whythe matter was redacted and whether it was lawfully redacted
First I dont understand references such as NJSA 471A-11(12)(c) The version of OPRA that I have (plus every other oneIve seen) does not have internal numbers within NJSA471A-11 Am I correct that NJSA 471A-11(12)(c) isintended to refer to the exemption for records in connection withcollective negotiations including documents and statements ofstrategy or negotiating position and that NJSA 471A-11(7)is intended to refer to any record within the attorney-clientprivilege This paragraph shall not be construed as exempting fromaccess attorney or consultant bills or invoices except that suchbills or invoices may be redacted to remove any informationprotected by the attorney-client privilege Please advise
Second even if I correctly corresponded the claimed exemptions tothe OPRA statute I have no way of knowing whether the mattersredacted are actually exempt from access When a custodiansuppresses any portion of any requested record NJSA471A-5(g) requires him or her to state the ldquospecific basisrdquo foreach suppressed element Beyond stating the ldquospecific basisrdquo foreach suppressed element he or she is required to ldquoproduce
Records Request
1 of 2 622011 810 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 49 of 77
specific reliable evidence sufficient to meet a statutorilyrecognized basis for confidentialityrdquo Courier News v HunterdonCounty Prosecutorrsquos Office 358 NJ Super 373 382-83 (App Div2003) Further he or she must explain each suppression in amanner that ldquowill enable other parties to assess the applicabilityof the privilege or protectionrdquo Paff v New Jersey Department ofLabor Board of Review 379 NJ Super 346 354-55 (2005)(quoting R 410-2(e))
Records requested
Runnemede Board of Education minutes for the following dates July28 2010 (728 pm session only) August 26 2010 February 22011 February 23 2011 (both sessions) and March 2 2011 Iwould like these minutes redacted as narrowly as possible if atall For each redaction I request a written explanation thatmeets the requirements of the case law cited above
cc Phil Stern
Records Request
2 of 2 622011 810 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 50 of 77
Subject Re Fwd Runnemede Board of Education Open PublicMeetings ActFrom John Paff ltpaffpoboxcomgtDate Mon 09 May 2011 134726 -0400To Nancy Ward ltnwardrunnemedeschoolsorggt
Thank you
On 592011 116 PM Nancy Ward wrote
Mr Paff
The Board has named me Custodian of Records Please direct allfuturecommunication to me The May 10 2011 meeting is theRe-organization ofthe Runnemede Board of Education The agenda is set and is verycomprehensive I intend to defer the letter and any discussionregardingits content to the next regular meeting the date of which willbe setat the re-organization tomorrow night In keeping with thedistrictsmeeting pattern that will be May 25 2011
Nancy BWard EdD
Superintendent of Schools
-----Original Message-----From John PaffSent 572011 42300 PMTo nwardrunnemedeschoolsorgCc vcarmodyrunnemedeschoolsorg psternasgllawcomSubject Fwd Runnemede Board of Education Open Public MeetingsAct
Here is another e-mail in case my original one should have beendirected to Ms Ward and not Ms Carmody
JP
-------- Original Message --------Subject Runnemede Board of Education Open Public Meetings ActDate Sat 07 May 2011 152319 -0400From John Paff
Re Fwd Runnemede Board of Education Open Public Meetings Act
1 of 2 622011 811 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 51 of 77
Reply-To paffpoboxcomTo vcarmodyrunnemedeschoolsorg psternasgllawcom
Ms Carmody and Mr Stern
Attached is a letter that I would like the Board to consider atits May10 2011 meeting Would you please a) acknowledge receipt of theletterand b) distribute it to all the Board members
Note that the last paragraph of the letter indicates that I willfilesuit against the Board if the issues in the letter arentaddressedSo if the Boards agenda for the May 10th meeting is so tightthat myletter cannot be accommodated please advise me of such andprovide ameeting date where my letter will be addressed so that I knowthat I amnot being ignored
Thank you
John Paff ChairmanNew Jersey Libertarian PartysOpen Government Advocacy Project
Re Fwd Runnemede Board of Education Open Public Meetings Act
2 of 2 622011 811 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 52 of 77
Subject OPRA RequestFrom Philip Stern ltpsternasgllawcomgtDate Fri 20 May 2011 161015 -0500To paffpoboxcom ltpaffpoboxcomgtCC Nancy Ward ltnwardrunnemedeschoolsorggt
Mr Paff please find attached to this email a response to your request forbusiness records Please note that in providing you with the attachedrecords the Runnemede Borough Board of Education waives no rightsregarding the attorney-client privilege Do not hesitate to call me if youhave any questions Phil Stern
Philip E SternAdams Stern Gutierrez amp Lattiboudere LLCThe Legal Center1037 Raymond Blvd Suite 710Newark New Jersey 07102(973) 735-2742 (office telephone)(201) 914-2415 (cellular telephone)(973) 735-2743 (office telefax)
May 20 Paff responsepdf
Content-DescriptionMay 20 Paffresponsepdf
Content-Type applicationpdf
Content-Encoding base64
OPRA Request
1 of 1 622011 815 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 53 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 54 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 55 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 56 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 57 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 58 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 59 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 60 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 61 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 62 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 63 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 64 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 65 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 66 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 67 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 68 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 69 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 70 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 71 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 72 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 73 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 74 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 75 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 76 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 77 of 77
- Civil Complaint
- Exhibits
-
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 11 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 12 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 13 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 14 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 15 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 16 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 17 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 18 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 19 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 20 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 21 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 22 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 23 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 24 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 25 of 77
Idled officials payout riles Runnemede
By BARBARA S ROTHSCHILD bull Courier-Post Staff bull March 5 2011
RUNNEMEDE mdash Although the school district is paying Business Administrator Kelly PetersBrazelton her full salary to stay home while paying for an interim employee RunnemedeSuperintendent Nancy Ward said it could have cost more not to have a separationagreement
New Jersey is a very litigious state she said In order to avoid litigation which neveris a good thing a separation agreement gives you a certain outcome
Brazelton a Deptford resident and the former business administrator for the SomerdalePublic School District began working for Runnemede schools in August 2008 Her mostrecent contract for July 1 2010 through June 30 is for $99465 plus benefits
But the relationship soured and the district would not comment on specifics citingconfidentiality
A letter from staff members written to Ward and the school board in July 2010 gaveexamples of a hostile work environment that they said was created by the businessadministrator
Brazelton could not be reached Her attorney Joseph Betley of Mount Laurel said hisclient signed the separation agreement in good faith
There was a disagreement between the board and Kelly he said It was resolved andboth sides decided to move on
She disputes any and all allegations regarding a hostile work environment It wassimply Kelly doing her job
The separation agreement and release dated Oct 20 stipulates Brazelton be placed ona paid leave of absence from Sept 23 to April 15 at which time she would irrevocablyresign
School board President Colleen Kurth said it was much easier to go with a separationagreement than pay more legal fees
She compared paying Brazelton to paying a teacher out sick while a substitute fills in
The job just has to go on Kurth said
Interim Business Administrator Valerie Carmody who retired from the same post in EastGreenwich last year was hired Dec 1 at $60 per hour 24 hours maximum per weekHer contract ends June 30
New Jersey School Boards Association spokesman Mike Yaple said such separationagreements are infrequent
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 26 of 77
No school board willingly enters into an agreement like this he insisted But eventhough its not a popular decision its the lesser of two evils
Residents unhappy about the districts handling of the situation include Dan Conard ajournalism student at Rowan University Conard writes a blog where he discusses schooldistrict and municipal matters To comment on this topic he filed Open Public RecordsAct (OPRA) document requests
I just wanted to get it out there so people know what is going on Conard said
Ward said she has no quarrel with the student but believes Brazeltons case is anunusual circumstance
It (the separation agreement) was the most responsible thing the district could havedone she insisted Was it a bitter pill to swallow It took the board (a while) beforethey felt it was something they could do but it makes the most sense
Ward said the part-time arrangement with Carmody is working out well and that as thedistrict improves efficiency it is unlikely another full-time business administrator will behired particularly when Executive County Superintendent Peggy Nicolosi has advisedagainst it
Among the options being considered are another part-time business administrator or ashared-service agreement with another district
Ward said she would have preferred the money being expended in this case be spent oneducational programs and teachers particularly this year
Although voters passed Runnemedes 2010-11 budget while many others were defeatedlast April the district of 853 students in K-8 lost six staffers and streamlined its gifted-and-talented program after state aid was cut
Ward also defended the decision to keep a maintenance techniciansupervisor positioncreated in 2008 noting it has saved at least $145000 each year
Mark Speck of Voorhees earns $50000 in the post Through June 2010 it was filled byDoug McGarry a former building and grounds supervisor in the Somerdale district Heearned $60000 in Runnemede but had more experience than Speck Ward said
Before Brazelton arrived in Runnemede the business administrator also served asmaintenance supervisor Ward said that actually cost the district more because it had topay outside maintenance workers sometimes for faulty work
Many things had been done to the facilities that were not to the boards satisfactionshe said That first year with our own maintenance person we saved $145000 becausewe hired a person who fixed things
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 27 of 77
Speck works with vendors going over bids and quotes and also does minor repairs thatno longer have to be paid for piecemeal Ward said the position is staying in the 2011-2012 budget adopted preliminarily on Wednesday
Hes the guy whos here at 4 am making sure weve got snow plows when we needthem Ward said Hes dirty and sweaty -- and hes excellent
Ward said the budget sent to the county includes a $78 annual tax increase for theowner of a home assessed at the $97800 borough average but does not cut staff orprograms
Kurth hopes to tweak the budget and lower the tax hike before it is introduced to thepublic on March 23 But she agreed the maintenance supervisor will stay
That was an investment on the part of the school district Kurth said
Reach Barbara S Rothschild at (856) 486-2416 or barothschildcamdengannettcom
--Comments
User Imageamonkeycoulddoit wroteThe mayor cant hear you because she doesnt even know how to turn on a computerNot that it was a requirement that the mayor should know how to use one I think theonly requirement is that they have a pulse And she does but barely372011 12406 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imageamonkeycoulddoit wroteTo sickofpolsnj it does seem that snoopysam has some inside information And whenyou say hows that mayors race looking I hope that you dont mean that someone fromthe disfunctional school board is going to run for mayor or council or some other electedposition considering the mess that they made on the school board372011 11832 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imageamonkeycoulddoit wroteIf the school board president had listened to staff when the hostil work enviroment issuestarted then she might not be in this pickle She should have spent the money on thelegal fees because if everything is true about the hostile enviroment then they wouldhave won the lawsuit hands down and not had to pay out anything and gotten their legalfees back Another example of elected officials not capable of doing the job they are inLets hope that some people come out of the woodwork to run for school board peoplewho care about the kids and the taxpayers372011 11309 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imageamonkeycoulddoit wrote
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 28 of 77
The school boad is not as inept as the mayor and council You dont have to be a collegegraduate or or even be able to read or write to get an elected position in runnemedeThe 2 new council members got elected because the are involved in the union andeveryone who supports the union came out to vote And the new mayor must have a lotof friends But now after the few months they have been in office it is clear to see thatthey are not able to handle the job Mayor14 is right that the people of Runnemedevoted because they thought they would get something in return for their vote but itlooks like they were wrong In the upcoming elections for school board and council votefor the person who will do the best job whether you like them or not Dont just vote forsomeone because you are told to372011 10214 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagethemayor14 wrotei am so glad this article was written and it clearly points out how inept the runnemedeboard of education actually is the board of education is not elected based on businessand education talent the elections are nothing more than a popularity contest i dontknow how other towns operate but runnemede boro is a total joke when it come toelections be it school board or general elections i wish everyone would get their headsout of their A$$ and truly investigate the school board canidates that are running forelection VOTE WITH YOUR HEAD NOT WITH YOUR HEART362011 91350 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagesavetheschools wroteSeveral people are running for the board for four open seats I signed a petition todayfor a new woman running Members are not paid If you live in Runnemede shopstewardyou have until Tuesday to get a petition submitted I asked and found out there is only 5people on average at the BOE meetings every month in Runnemede I hope more peoplestart to go I plan on it myself And we all need to go every month not just when weread negative press about our schools That is the only way we would all stay informedand not rely on the young man submitting OPRA requests Our town has always beenabout the kids and it needs to get back that way362011 80936 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser ImageShopsteward wroteWhy did it take one young man sending in OPRA requests to bring all this to lightWhy are you relying upon him to get to the bottom of it You say The other members(except for the one who was just arrested and resigned) are good people and didnothing wrong to the district and that might be true except for the fact that theyallowed that incredible salary and benefits to be given out and even though all kinds ofrumors were flying around it took an outsider with OPRA requests to bring this ghastlypimple to a head Sounds more like none of them are doing their jobs and should be outof office and off the payroll They should all just resign They arent doing the job thatwas assigned to them362011 32559 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Image
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 29 of 77
Shopsteward wroteA crime was committed here It began with a violation of the Publics trust by the peoplewho allowed this contract to be signed in the first place What a jokeHow many moreof these jobs are hidden in the budgets of our Schools There needs to be a thouroughcleaning of all thses tyeps of employees everywhere At the State County Municipaland Scool board level and the appointed Authorities too Everyone screams about theUnions but whenever you hear of some great big abuse it turns out the person wasnteven in the UnionClean up this mess first Mr Christie before yougo after the little guys It will save us all a lot more money362011 101606 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser ImageShopsteward wroteI still dont get itHow is a part time24 hr a week job worth so much This is aprime example of the waste that is giving the public workers a bad nameThe onlyproblem is it isnt some Union personIts management and its the same all over This isjust the tip of the iceberg they scream about the Unions but the real waste is in jobs likethis oneNo way this job or the thousands of others like it should be paid so well99465 PLUS BENEFITS incrediblethere should be a lawandthe person gets a pension based on that bloated salarytooThere should be other people losing their jobs not for theseperation aggreement but for letting this evenhappen352011 101125 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagethesplits wroteI guess this is Runnemedes version of a shared service352011 73450 PM
User Imagethesplits wroteLooks like its the same old Runnemede and I thought we voted for change Mayor352011 73202 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagesavetheschools wroteFrom what I understand and I live in town the board went into this separationagreement because the BA would have had a potential lawsuit and it would have costthe school district and tax payers a ton of money Much more than they are spendingnow And yes it is one school board member who was apparently corrupt Just one Theyoung man who was mentioned in the article has been OPRA requesting items and willget to the bottom of this situation with the former BA and the certain board memberBut that is just one person The other members (except for the one who was justarrested and resigned) are good people and did nothing wrong to the district Thisformer BA and her friend who was hired as the maint supervisor have been a hot topicfor a few years Ask the employees they were awful and needed to go It is awful thatthis money was not spent on our children It was a trainwreck from the beginning and ifI recall correctly when the hiring took place only one of the members voted no and that
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 30 of 77
was the local high school teacher metioned in another post Runnemede schools arefantastic and maybe the new people running for election will get some answers andmake some changes And maybe the BOE member who was mentioned by employees asbeing the reason why there could be a possible lawsuit should just resign I understandadmin make good money but they also need to be accountable for their actions and ifthe BA made a hostile environment and was supported by one BOE member both shouldbe gonenot just the BA352011 33207 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagecookmom wroteWhere is Gov Christies veto power352011 30321 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagecookmom wroteThis all happened with a local police officer and a FOP member and local high schoolteacher and member of the NJEA on the board The Runnemede Board is looking alotlike the DRPA and was this group picked by the new Mayor352011 30042 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagesickofpolsnj wroteThe real truth is the Board of Education member and Brazelton and the unethicalsituation that THEY created The questionable contracts and underhanded deals There isa certain Board Member that hopes that this ends here well it doesnt There is not aTeacher or employee in Runnemede Schools that would defend Brazelton same goes forSomerdale And many are willing to bring out MANY of the things that Brazelton did todestroy the district The ENTIRE Runnemede School Community is thrilled that Brazeltonis gone Snoopysam is clearly one of two people Kelly or the Board Member shouldwe name names Hows that Mayors race looking352011 114254 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser ImageShopsteward wrote$99465 plus benefits How much does she pay for her share of those benefitsor are they free to her Her replacement only works 24 hours a week are we being toldthat she got that much money for a part time job What is the matter with theidiots that hired her to begin withNo one should get that kind of money for a part timeThat is an awful lot of money for that kind of job We should not be surprised at all Thiskind of thing is everywhere in Camden CountyIts the NORMAL way of doingbusiness352011 113922 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagelookfar111 wroteYep same old story hire someone for $98000 when 10 equally qualified people woulddo it for 60k with a 20 year top out at 75 k Then a sweetheart adios gift And the cherry
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 31 of 77
on top Another tax increase for the people God I hate what the democrat machinehave done to this once great state352011 111649 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser ImageSnoopysam wrotesickofpolsnj you must be on ot those employees that Brazelton held accountable forHER actions You are right there is so much more to this story and when the real truthscome out there will be some emplopyeesadministratorsboard members hanging theirheads in shame Talk about wasting taxpayer dollars take a look at some of the lazyincompetent employees that Brazelton had to deal withand their HUGE mistakes thathad to be corrected which cost the taxpayers thousands upon thousands of dollars352011 94250 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagesickofpolsnj wroteYou are exactly correct A teacher would never get a sweatheart deal like this I wonderwhich Board Member it was that was mentioned in that letter Did you read the blog thatthis all came out on it has way more details than this articlehttpdansviewrunnemedewordpresscom352011 92934 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagesickofpolsnj wroteOnly thing is Runnemede never had these issues Somerdale had the same EXACT issueswith Brazelton Administrators arent allowed to comment however talk to the teachersand employees off record they will tell you all about Kelly352011 92726 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagesickofpolsnj wroteThere is so much more to this story I hope the CP will run a follow up 1 Look into therealtionship and hiring surrounding Doug the maintenance supervisor 2 Check intoBrazeltons past employment Somerdale Schools 3 Brazelton is rumored to be hired atthe completion of the settlement in Deptford 4 Look into unethical practices between aBoard Member and Brazelton 5 And what about the other Board member that wasrecently charged with a serious crime352011 92315 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imageicallbullschit wroteOnce again the government tries to pin their mistakes on an individual when they screwup royally What the paper fails to report is the other side Maybe years and years ofmismanagement and patronage were uncovered and it became a hostile environmentwhen people got called on their actions and the same old routine was stopped Maybethe school board realized it would be cheaper to pay one than to pay many for theirmistakes Maybe the school board was willing to pay in order to keep their dirty littlesecrets covered up Maybe the resident should look deeper into the actions of the schoolboard and the rest of the administration Maybe I am wrong but it seems that the board
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 32 of 77
got called on some issues and now they are attacking one individual to cover theirtracks They seem to be acting like the GREAT WIZARD OF OZ Pay no attention to theidiots behind the curtain we are the all powerful and all knowing school board Pull backthe curtain people because there are people behind there that are faking their waythrough and going to wind up costing the district millions Just saying352011 85642 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagecookmom wroteSchool board President Colleen Kurth said it was much easier to go with a separationagreement than pay more legal fees She compared paying Brazelton to paying ateacher out sick while a substitute fills in The job just has to go on Kurth said I amconfused A teacher out SICK is NOT the same as a HOSTILE work enviorment How cana medical condition be compared to a person being accused of a hostile workenviorment A teacher would be REQUIRED to use their sick days~ since this is beingcompared to an illness ~was Brazelton REQUIRED to give up her sickvacation pay orwas that part of the dealWas she also paid for those days Wouldnt we all love to becollecting a salary from two towns As now she is being paid by Runnemde AND acurrent SCHOOL district where she is currently employed THIS is the waste in ourSchool districts352011 83552 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imageneocon wroteShe is part of the Protected Classes All you need to know is that she is better thanyou so just keep moveing along Nothing to see here352011 81912 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report Abuse
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 33 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 34 of 77
New Jersey Libertarian PartyOpen Government Advocacy Project
John Paff Chairman
PO Box 5424
Somerset NJ 08875-5424
Phone 732-873-1251 - Fax 908-325-0129
Email lpsmcpoboxcom
May 7 2011
Hon Colleen Kurth President and members of the
Runnemede Board of Education
505 W Third Ave
Runnemede NJ 08078 (via e-mail to vcarmodyrunnemedeschoolsorg )
Dear President Kurth and Board members
I write both individually and on behalf the New Jersey Libertarian Partys Open
Government Advocacy Project to comment on 1) the manner in which the Board of Education
goes into nonpublic (ie executive or closed) session and 2) the level of detail contained within
the Boardrsquos executive session minutes
Issue 1 Executive Session resolutions
As you are aware the Senator Byron M Baer Open Public Meetings Act requires public
bodies such as the Runnemede Board of Education to publicly pass a resolution before
excluding the public from a meeting The statute that requires the resolution states
NJSA 104-13mdashClosed meetings resolution to conduct
No public body shall exclude the public from any meeting to discuss any
matter described in subsection 7 b (104-12) until the public body shall
first adopt a resolution at a meeting to which the public shall be admitted
a Stating the general nature of the subject to be discussed and
b Stating as precisely as possible the time when and the circumstances
under which the discussion conducted in closed session of the public body
can be disclosed to the public
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 35 of 77
2
By way of a recent records request I received resolutions which purport to authorize
executive sessions intended to be held by the Board of Education on July 28 2010 (2 sessions)
August 20 2010 February 2 1011 February 23 2011 (2 sessions) and March 2 2011 Those
resolutions which are virtually identical to each other state
Executive Session to discuss student matters personnel contractual and
legal matters [time and a statement as to whether action will be
taken]
[identity of maker of motion etc]
Resolved that pursuant to Section 8 of the Public Meetings Act the public
shall be excluded from that portion of the meeting involving the discussion
of personnel legal and contractual matters Further resolved that
discussion of such subject matters discussed in Executive Session can be
disclosed to public upon official action if any at the conclusion of the
executive session or at a public session at some later date
I dont think that this form of resolution satisfies NJSA 104-13 because it gives the
public no real sense of what is being privately discussed1 To paraphrase the highest court of of
another state a body which only announces ldquolegal mattersrdquo or ldquopersonnel negotiationsrdquo for
going into executive session has said nothing It might has well have stated to the audience
ldquoLadies and gentlemen we are going into executive sessionrdquo and stopped there Hinds County
Board of Supervisors v Common Cause of Mississippi 551 So2d 107 114 (MS 1989)
Of course there can be no dispute that the Board of Education often has legitimate
reasons to meet in nonpublic session Among these reasons is the need to prevent the adverse
parties in litigation or contract negotiations from gaining an unfair advantage and to allow
members of the governing body to debate and deliberate personnel matters without public
scrutiny or participation But the need to discuss matters privately should not prevent the
public from being informed as precisely as possible of the topics that are being privately
discussed
For example suppose that Runnemede Board is being sued by a Mr Jones who was
injured after he slipped and fell on what he claims to be negligently maintained school
property Since the lawsuit is already a public record there is no public purpose served by
vaguely describing a private discussion of it as ldquostudent matters personnel contractual and
legal mattersrdquo Rather the resolution should at the very least describe the private discussion as
1 In January 2007 when I most recently litigated this issue Middlesex County Superior Court Judge Alexander P
Waugh issued a written decision in which he agreed with other court decisions that closed session resolutions
should contain as much information as is consistent with full public knowledge without doing any harm to the
public interest Judge Waughs decision and other case documents are on the Web at
httpogtfarchiveorgOGTFMonroeBOEWebreadypdf
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 36 of 77
3
ldquoDiscussion of slip and fall negligence suit Jones v Runnemede Board Docket No CAM-L-
012345-11rdquo This way the public has a very good sense of what the Boardrsquos private discussion is
about while the ability of the Board to develop its lawsuit strategy is not undermined
Using the same example suppose that Jonesrsquo attorney sent the Boardrsquos attorney an offer
to fully settle the lawsuit upon the Boardrsquos payment of $20000 While the Board would
obviously need to discuss how to respond to the offer in private lest Jones or his attorney
would be in the audience witnessing the discussion there is no reason why the public cannot be
informed in the NJSA 104-13 resolution that the Board will meet in private to discuss ldquoa
settlement offer received from the Plaintiff in the slip and fall negligence suit known as Jones v
Runnemede Board Docket No CAM-L-012345-11 in which the Plaintiff offers to settle the suit
in exchange for the Board paying him $20000rdquo While it may initially seem that this would
provide ldquotoo muchrdquo information to the public this concern disappears once it is realized that
the sole purpose of the exception2 that allows litigation matters to be discussed in private is to
keep the adverse party to the litigation in the dark regarding the Boardrsquos position3 Since in this
example the adverse party (ie Jones) already knows that he offered to settle the lawsuit for
$20000 there is no legitimate reason why the public should not also know of the tendered
settlement offer
As another example suppose that a personnel matter such as whether or not a Mrs
Smith a public works employee should be disciplined because of repeatedly arriving late to
work is to be discussed in closed session In such a case the amount of detail set forth in the
NJSA 104-13 resolution should correspond to the amount of detail that the Board and its
attorney predict will be publicly disclosed in the closed meetingrsquos minutes when those minutes
are made public
The standard that the Board is to use when determining how much information about a
personnel matter is to be disclosed in the closed sessionrsquos minutes is set forth in South Jersey
Publishing Company Inc v New Jersey Expressway Authority 124 NJ 478 (1991) That
standard is that a) the public needs information if it is properly fulfill its role of evaluating the
wisdom of governmental action or a decision not to act b) that New Jerseys strong public
policy requires that a public bodyrsquos actions and decisions to not act be disclosed in the bodys
closed meeting minutes along with sufficient facts and information to permit the public to
understand and appraise the reasonableness of the bodys determination and c) to the extent a
cognizable privacy interest may be compromised by the required disclosure the extent of
disclosure may be modified through redactions of the minutes provided the public interest in
disclosure is not subverted
2 NJSA104-12(b)(7) is to prevent adverse parties to litigation and contracts from learning the details of the
public bodyrsquos negotiation tactics and litigation strategy3 See the discussion in Paff v Washington Township Docket No MER-L-2205-07 and Nevin v Asbury Park City
Board 2005 WL 2847974 (App Div November 1 2005) which are on-line at
httpogtfarchiveorgOGTFWashingtonpdf (Nevin begins at page 44 of the PDF file at the link)
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 37 of 77
4
Thus regardless of whether the Board disciplines Ms Smith or chooses to not impose
discipline due to her lateness the outcome should be recorded in the closed meeting minutes
The question of whether that entry in the minutes should be redacted before the minutes are
made public requires a balancing of Ms Smithrsquos interest in keeping the disciplinary matter
private against the publicrsquos interest in effectively monitoring the Board If the Board with
counselrsquos advice determines after balancing these interests that the outcome will be published
unredacted in the closed sessionrsquos minutes (ie if the minutes will disclose to the public eg that
ldquoMs Smith was suspended for three days on account of her habitual latenessrdquo) then the exact
nature of the matter (ie that ldquothe Board will discuss disciplining Ms Smith for excessive
latenessrdquo) should be set forth in the closed meetingrsquos NJSA 104-13 resolution Inversely if the
Board determines that Ms Smithrsquos privacy interest exceeds the publicrsquos right to know then less
information (eg ldquothe Board will discuss disciplining an employee for excessive latenessrdquo)
should be set forth in the closed meetingrsquos NJSA 104-13 resolution
In other words if the officer or employee being discussed doesnt have a privacy interest
sufficient to withstand a citizens request for the executive session minutes why should not the
public know the topic of the executive session prior to it occurring
Irsquove attached as Exhibit pages 1 -3 is a model resolution that I would like the Board to
use in the future
Issue 2 Executive Session minutes
Attached as Exhibit Page 4 as an example are the Boardrsquos July 28 2010 executive session
minutes It is troubling that a meeting that lasted over an hour is being summed up in a single
sentence ldquoMr Phil Stern addressed the Board of Education about personnel issuesrdquo These
minutes are not ldquoreasonably comprehensiblerdquo as required by NJSA 104-14
The purpose of closed meeting minutes is not merely to inform the public of whatoccurred during the private session but also to create a record for the Board membersthemselves A Board member who is newly elected in 2012 should be able by referringsolely to the minutes to figure out what issues the Board addressed during any previouslyheld closed meeting This hypothetical Board member after reading the July 28 2010closed minutes could not possibly figure out which employees or officials Mr Stern wastalking about
Better practice would be to record closed minutes that are much morecomprehensive but to redact that material that must be shielded from public view Forexample the minutes could have said
Mr Stern addressed the Board of Education about the habitualtardiness of 2nd grade teacher Mary Doe and her propensity to eatlibrary paste and scream hysterically during fire drills Herecommended that she be sent for psychiatric evaluation
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 38 of 77
5
Of course if a member of the public requested these hypothetical minutes the Boardmay need to redact them in order to protect privacy interests The point however is thatregardless of whether unredacted closed meeting minutes are ever released to the publicthey should contain sufficient details so that the Board members themselves can monthsor years later know what was discussed
Attached as Exhibit pages 5 ndash 9 is an order recently entered in Schmidt et al v City of
Gloucester City et al Docket No CAM-L-1287-11 As you can see paraA(3) supports my position
that the Boardrsquos minutes are not ldquoreasonably comprehensiblerdquo as required by law
Conclusion
Since some public bodies do not take my requests for Meetings Act compliance seriously
I regret having to inform the Board that I will sue for declaratory and injunctive relief in
accordance with NJSA 104-16 unless I receive assurances from the Boardmdashwithin a few days
after its May 10 2011 meetingmdashthat it will work in good faith to improve the amount of
information in both its closed session resolutions and minutes If the Boardrsquos agenda is already
set for the May 10 2011 meeting please at least acknowledge this letter and let me know the
date of the meeting at which it will be considered
Thank you very much for your attention to this matter I look forward to hearing from
you
Sincerely
John Paff
cc Philip E Stern Esq w enc (via e-mail to psternasgllawcom )
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 39 of 77
RUNNEMEDE BOARD OF EDUCATIONRESOLUTION NO ___________
AUTHORIZING EXECUTIVE SESSION
WHEREAS while the Sen Byron M Baer Open Public Meetings Act (NJSA 104-6 et seq) requires allmeetings of the Runnemede Board of Education to be held in public NJSA 104-12(b) sets forth nine (9)types of matters that may lawfully be discussed in ldquoExecutive Sessionrdquo ie without the public beingpermitted to attend and
WHEREAS the Runnemede Board of Education has determined that _____ (insert number) issues arepermitted by NJSA 104-12(b) to be discussed without the public in attendance shall be discussed duringan Executive Session to be held on _________________________ 20____ at _______ PM and
WHEREAS the nine (9) exceptions to public meetings set forth in NJSA 104-12(b) are listed below andnext to each exception is a box within which the number of issues to be privately discussed that fall withinthat exception shall be written and after each exception is a space where additional information that willdisclose as much information about the discussion as possible without undermining the purpose of theexception shall be written
ldquo(1) Any matter which by express provision of Federal law State statute or rule of courtshall be rendered confidential or excluded from public discussionrdquo The legal citation to theprovision(s) at issue is__________________________ and the nature of the matter described asspecifically as possible without undermining the need for confidentiality is _______________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(2) Any matter in which the release of information would impair a right to receive fundsfrom the federal governmentrdquo The nature of the matter described as specifically as possiblewithout undermining the need for confidentiality is _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(3) Any material the disclosure of which constitutes an unwarranted invasion of individualprivacy such as any records data reports recommendations or other personal material ofany educational training social service medical health custodial child protectionrehabilitation legal defense welfare housing relocation insurance and similar program orinstitution operated by a public body pertaining to any specific individual admitted to orserved by such institution or program including but not limited to information relative tothe individuals personal and family circumstances and any material pertaining toadmission discharge treatment progress or condition of any individual unless theindividual concerned (or in the case of a minor or incompetent his guardian) shall requestin writing that the same be disclosed publiclyrdquo The nature of the matter described asspecifically as possible without undermining the need for confidentiality is______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(4) Any collective bargaining agreement or the terms and conditions of which are proposedfor inclusion in any collective bargaining agreement including the negotiation of terms andconditions with employees or representatives of employees of the public bodyrdquo The collectivebargaining contract(s) discussed are between the Board and ____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Exhibit Page 1Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 40 of 77
ldquo(5) Any matter involving the purchase lease or acquisition of real property with publicfunds the setting of bank rates or investment of public funds where it could adversely affectthe public interest if discussion of such matters were disclosedrdquo The nature of the matterdescribed as specifically as possible without undermining the need for confidentiality is____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(6) Any tactics and techniques utilized in protecting the safety and property of the publicprovided that their disclosure could impair such protection Any investigations of violationsor possible violations of the lawrdquo The nature of the matter described as specifically as possiblewithout undermining the need for confidentiality is ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(7) Any pending or anticipated litigation or contract negotiation in which the public body isor may become a party Any matters falling within the attorney-client privilege to the extentthat confidentiality is required in order for the attorney to exercise his ethicalduties as a lawyerrdquo The parties to and docket numbers of each item of litigation andor theparties to each contract discussed are __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ andnature of the discussion described as specifically as possible without undermining the need forconfidentiality is ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(8) Any matter involving the employment appointment termination of employment termsand conditions of employment evaluation of the performance promotion or disciplining ofany specific prospective public officer or employee or current public officer or employeeemployed or appointed by the public body unless all individual employees or appointees whoserights could be adversely affected request in writing that such matter or matters be discussed ata public meetingrdquo Subject to the balancing of the publicrsquos interest and the employeersquos privacyrights under South Jersey Publishing Co v New Jersey Expressway Authority 124 NJ 478 theemployee(s) and nature of the discussion described as specifically as possible withoutundermining the need for confidentiality are _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(9) Any deliberation of a public body occurring after a public hearing that may result in theimposition of a specific civil penalty upon the responding party or the suspension or loss of alicense or permit belonging to the responding party as a result of an act of omission forwhich the responding party bears responsibilityrdquo The nature of the matter described asspecifically as possible without undermining the need for confidentiality is______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
WHEREAS the length of the Executive Session is estimated to be ________ minutes after which the publicmeeting of the Board shall (circle one) reconvene and immediately adjourn or reconvene and proceed withbusiness
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Runnemede Board of Education will go into ExecutiveSession for only the above stated reasons
Exhibit Page 2Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 41 of 77
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board hereby declares that its discussion of the aforementionedsubject(s) will be made public at a time when the publicrsquos interest in disclosure is greater than any privacy orgovernmental interest being protected from disclosure For each of the above items the estimated date bywhich such disclosure can be made andor the occurrence that needs to take place before disclosure can bemade are listed below (attach separate sheet if necessary)
Subject of Discussion Estimated Date Necessary Occurrence
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Clerk at the present public meeting shall read aloud enough ofthis resolution so that members of the public in attendance can understand as precisely as possible thenature of the matters that will privately discussed
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Clerk on the next business day following this meeting shallfurnish a copy of this resolution to any member of the public who requests one at the fees allowed byNJSA 471A-1 et seq
_________________________________Board President
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS ATRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTIONAPPROVED BY THE RUNNEMEDE BOARD OF EDUCATION AT ITSPUBLIC MEETING HELD ON ______________________20___
_______________________________________Board Secretary
Exhibit Page 3Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 42 of 77
Exhibit Page 4Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 43 of 77
Exhibit Page 5Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 44 of 77
Exhibit Page 6Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 45 of 77
Exhibit Page 7Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 46 of 77
Exhibit Page 8Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 47 of 77
Exhibit Page 9Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 48 of 77
Subject Records RequestFrom John Paff ltpaffpoboxcomgtDate Sat 07 May 2011 161444 -0400To vcarmodyrunnemedeschoolsorgCC psternasgllawcom
Ms Carmody
Please accept this e-mail as my request for government records inaccordance with the Open Public Records Act (OPRA) and the commonlaw right of access Please respond and send all responsivedocuments to me via e-mail at paffpoboxcom If e-mail is notpossible please fax responses and responsive records to me at908-325-0129 Also I would appreciate it if you wouldacknowledge your receipt of this e-mail
Background
In response to a records request I recently received redactedexecutive session minutes for the following dates July 28 2010(first session) August 26 2010 February 2 2011 February 232011 (two sessions) and March 2 2011 Although Mr Stern providedme with a sheet entitled Documents Exempt From OPRA request thatpurports to explain these redactions I am still unclear as to whythe matter was redacted and whether it was lawfully redacted
First I dont understand references such as NJSA 471A-11(12)(c) The version of OPRA that I have (plus every other oneIve seen) does not have internal numbers within NJSA471A-11 Am I correct that NJSA 471A-11(12)(c) isintended to refer to the exemption for records in connection withcollective negotiations including documents and statements ofstrategy or negotiating position and that NJSA 471A-11(7)is intended to refer to any record within the attorney-clientprivilege This paragraph shall not be construed as exempting fromaccess attorney or consultant bills or invoices except that suchbills or invoices may be redacted to remove any informationprotected by the attorney-client privilege Please advise
Second even if I correctly corresponded the claimed exemptions tothe OPRA statute I have no way of knowing whether the mattersredacted are actually exempt from access When a custodiansuppresses any portion of any requested record NJSA471A-5(g) requires him or her to state the ldquospecific basisrdquo foreach suppressed element Beyond stating the ldquospecific basisrdquo foreach suppressed element he or she is required to ldquoproduce
Records Request
1 of 2 622011 810 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 49 of 77
specific reliable evidence sufficient to meet a statutorilyrecognized basis for confidentialityrdquo Courier News v HunterdonCounty Prosecutorrsquos Office 358 NJ Super 373 382-83 (App Div2003) Further he or she must explain each suppression in amanner that ldquowill enable other parties to assess the applicabilityof the privilege or protectionrdquo Paff v New Jersey Department ofLabor Board of Review 379 NJ Super 346 354-55 (2005)(quoting R 410-2(e))
Records requested
Runnemede Board of Education minutes for the following dates July28 2010 (728 pm session only) August 26 2010 February 22011 February 23 2011 (both sessions) and March 2 2011 Iwould like these minutes redacted as narrowly as possible if atall For each redaction I request a written explanation thatmeets the requirements of the case law cited above
cc Phil Stern
Records Request
2 of 2 622011 810 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 50 of 77
Subject Re Fwd Runnemede Board of Education Open PublicMeetings ActFrom John Paff ltpaffpoboxcomgtDate Mon 09 May 2011 134726 -0400To Nancy Ward ltnwardrunnemedeschoolsorggt
Thank you
On 592011 116 PM Nancy Ward wrote
Mr Paff
The Board has named me Custodian of Records Please direct allfuturecommunication to me The May 10 2011 meeting is theRe-organization ofthe Runnemede Board of Education The agenda is set and is verycomprehensive I intend to defer the letter and any discussionregardingits content to the next regular meeting the date of which willbe setat the re-organization tomorrow night In keeping with thedistrictsmeeting pattern that will be May 25 2011
Nancy BWard EdD
Superintendent of Schools
-----Original Message-----From John PaffSent 572011 42300 PMTo nwardrunnemedeschoolsorgCc vcarmodyrunnemedeschoolsorg psternasgllawcomSubject Fwd Runnemede Board of Education Open Public MeetingsAct
Here is another e-mail in case my original one should have beendirected to Ms Ward and not Ms Carmody
JP
-------- Original Message --------Subject Runnemede Board of Education Open Public Meetings ActDate Sat 07 May 2011 152319 -0400From John Paff
Re Fwd Runnemede Board of Education Open Public Meetings Act
1 of 2 622011 811 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 51 of 77
Reply-To paffpoboxcomTo vcarmodyrunnemedeschoolsorg psternasgllawcom
Ms Carmody and Mr Stern
Attached is a letter that I would like the Board to consider atits May10 2011 meeting Would you please a) acknowledge receipt of theletterand b) distribute it to all the Board members
Note that the last paragraph of the letter indicates that I willfilesuit against the Board if the issues in the letter arentaddressedSo if the Boards agenda for the May 10th meeting is so tightthat myletter cannot be accommodated please advise me of such andprovide ameeting date where my letter will be addressed so that I knowthat I amnot being ignored
Thank you
John Paff ChairmanNew Jersey Libertarian PartysOpen Government Advocacy Project
Re Fwd Runnemede Board of Education Open Public Meetings Act
2 of 2 622011 811 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 52 of 77
Subject OPRA RequestFrom Philip Stern ltpsternasgllawcomgtDate Fri 20 May 2011 161015 -0500To paffpoboxcom ltpaffpoboxcomgtCC Nancy Ward ltnwardrunnemedeschoolsorggt
Mr Paff please find attached to this email a response to your request forbusiness records Please note that in providing you with the attachedrecords the Runnemede Borough Board of Education waives no rightsregarding the attorney-client privilege Do not hesitate to call me if youhave any questions Phil Stern
Philip E SternAdams Stern Gutierrez amp Lattiboudere LLCThe Legal Center1037 Raymond Blvd Suite 710Newark New Jersey 07102(973) 735-2742 (office telephone)(201) 914-2415 (cellular telephone)(973) 735-2743 (office telefax)
May 20 Paff responsepdf
Content-DescriptionMay 20 Paffresponsepdf
Content-Type applicationpdf
Content-Encoding base64
OPRA Request
1 of 1 622011 815 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 53 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 54 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 55 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 56 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 57 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 58 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 59 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 60 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 61 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 62 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 63 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 64 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 65 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 66 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 67 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 68 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 69 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 70 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 71 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 72 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 73 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 74 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 75 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 76 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 77 of 77
- Civil Complaint
- Exhibits
-
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 12 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 13 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 14 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 15 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 16 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 17 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 18 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 19 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 20 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 21 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 22 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 23 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 24 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 25 of 77
Idled officials payout riles Runnemede
By BARBARA S ROTHSCHILD bull Courier-Post Staff bull March 5 2011
RUNNEMEDE mdash Although the school district is paying Business Administrator Kelly PetersBrazelton her full salary to stay home while paying for an interim employee RunnemedeSuperintendent Nancy Ward said it could have cost more not to have a separationagreement
New Jersey is a very litigious state she said In order to avoid litigation which neveris a good thing a separation agreement gives you a certain outcome
Brazelton a Deptford resident and the former business administrator for the SomerdalePublic School District began working for Runnemede schools in August 2008 Her mostrecent contract for July 1 2010 through June 30 is for $99465 plus benefits
But the relationship soured and the district would not comment on specifics citingconfidentiality
A letter from staff members written to Ward and the school board in July 2010 gaveexamples of a hostile work environment that they said was created by the businessadministrator
Brazelton could not be reached Her attorney Joseph Betley of Mount Laurel said hisclient signed the separation agreement in good faith
There was a disagreement between the board and Kelly he said It was resolved andboth sides decided to move on
She disputes any and all allegations regarding a hostile work environment It wassimply Kelly doing her job
The separation agreement and release dated Oct 20 stipulates Brazelton be placed ona paid leave of absence from Sept 23 to April 15 at which time she would irrevocablyresign
School board President Colleen Kurth said it was much easier to go with a separationagreement than pay more legal fees
She compared paying Brazelton to paying a teacher out sick while a substitute fills in
The job just has to go on Kurth said
Interim Business Administrator Valerie Carmody who retired from the same post in EastGreenwich last year was hired Dec 1 at $60 per hour 24 hours maximum per weekHer contract ends June 30
New Jersey School Boards Association spokesman Mike Yaple said such separationagreements are infrequent
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 26 of 77
No school board willingly enters into an agreement like this he insisted But eventhough its not a popular decision its the lesser of two evils
Residents unhappy about the districts handling of the situation include Dan Conard ajournalism student at Rowan University Conard writes a blog where he discusses schooldistrict and municipal matters To comment on this topic he filed Open Public RecordsAct (OPRA) document requests
I just wanted to get it out there so people know what is going on Conard said
Ward said she has no quarrel with the student but believes Brazeltons case is anunusual circumstance
It (the separation agreement) was the most responsible thing the district could havedone she insisted Was it a bitter pill to swallow It took the board (a while) beforethey felt it was something they could do but it makes the most sense
Ward said the part-time arrangement with Carmody is working out well and that as thedistrict improves efficiency it is unlikely another full-time business administrator will behired particularly when Executive County Superintendent Peggy Nicolosi has advisedagainst it
Among the options being considered are another part-time business administrator or ashared-service agreement with another district
Ward said she would have preferred the money being expended in this case be spent oneducational programs and teachers particularly this year
Although voters passed Runnemedes 2010-11 budget while many others were defeatedlast April the district of 853 students in K-8 lost six staffers and streamlined its gifted-and-talented program after state aid was cut
Ward also defended the decision to keep a maintenance techniciansupervisor positioncreated in 2008 noting it has saved at least $145000 each year
Mark Speck of Voorhees earns $50000 in the post Through June 2010 it was filled byDoug McGarry a former building and grounds supervisor in the Somerdale district Heearned $60000 in Runnemede but had more experience than Speck Ward said
Before Brazelton arrived in Runnemede the business administrator also served asmaintenance supervisor Ward said that actually cost the district more because it had topay outside maintenance workers sometimes for faulty work
Many things had been done to the facilities that were not to the boards satisfactionshe said That first year with our own maintenance person we saved $145000 becausewe hired a person who fixed things
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 27 of 77
Speck works with vendors going over bids and quotes and also does minor repairs thatno longer have to be paid for piecemeal Ward said the position is staying in the 2011-2012 budget adopted preliminarily on Wednesday
Hes the guy whos here at 4 am making sure weve got snow plows when we needthem Ward said Hes dirty and sweaty -- and hes excellent
Ward said the budget sent to the county includes a $78 annual tax increase for theowner of a home assessed at the $97800 borough average but does not cut staff orprograms
Kurth hopes to tweak the budget and lower the tax hike before it is introduced to thepublic on March 23 But she agreed the maintenance supervisor will stay
That was an investment on the part of the school district Kurth said
Reach Barbara S Rothschild at (856) 486-2416 or barothschildcamdengannettcom
--Comments
User Imageamonkeycoulddoit wroteThe mayor cant hear you because she doesnt even know how to turn on a computerNot that it was a requirement that the mayor should know how to use one I think theonly requirement is that they have a pulse And she does but barely372011 12406 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imageamonkeycoulddoit wroteTo sickofpolsnj it does seem that snoopysam has some inside information And whenyou say hows that mayors race looking I hope that you dont mean that someone fromthe disfunctional school board is going to run for mayor or council or some other electedposition considering the mess that they made on the school board372011 11832 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imageamonkeycoulddoit wroteIf the school board president had listened to staff when the hostil work enviroment issuestarted then she might not be in this pickle She should have spent the money on thelegal fees because if everything is true about the hostile enviroment then they wouldhave won the lawsuit hands down and not had to pay out anything and gotten their legalfees back Another example of elected officials not capable of doing the job they are inLets hope that some people come out of the woodwork to run for school board peoplewho care about the kids and the taxpayers372011 11309 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imageamonkeycoulddoit wrote
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 28 of 77
The school boad is not as inept as the mayor and council You dont have to be a collegegraduate or or even be able to read or write to get an elected position in runnemedeThe 2 new council members got elected because the are involved in the union andeveryone who supports the union came out to vote And the new mayor must have a lotof friends But now after the few months they have been in office it is clear to see thatthey are not able to handle the job Mayor14 is right that the people of Runnemedevoted because they thought they would get something in return for their vote but itlooks like they were wrong In the upcoming elections for school board and council votefor the person who will do the best job whether you like them or not Dont just vote forsomeone because you are told to372011 10214 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagethemayor14 wrotei am so glad this article was written and it clearly points out how inept the runnemedeboard of education actually is the board of education is not elected based on businessand education talent the elections are nothing more than a popularity contest i dontknow how other towns operate but runnemede boro is a total joke when it come toelections be it school board or general elections i wish everyone would get their headsout of their A$$ and truly investigate the school board canidates that are running forelection VOTE WITH YOUR HEAD NOT WITH YOUR HEART362011 91350 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagesavetheschools wroteSeveral people are running for the board for four open seats I signed a petition todayfor a new woman running Members are not paid If you live in Runnemede shopstewardyou have until Tuesday to get a petition submitted I asked and found out there is only 5people on average at the BOE meetings every month in Runnemede I hope more peoplestart to go I plan on it myself And we all need to go every month not just when weread negative press about our schools That is the only way we would all stay informedand not rely on the young man submitting OPRA requests Our town has always beenabout the kids and it needs to get back that way362011 80936 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser ImageShopsteward wroteWhy did it take one young man sending in OPRA requests to bring all this to lightWhy are you relying upon him to get to the bottom of it You say The other members(except for the one who was just arrested and resigned) are good people and didnothing wrong to the district and that might be true except for the fact that theyallowed that incredible salary and benefits to be given out and even though all kinds ofrumors were flying around it took an outsider with OPRA requests to bring this ghastlypimple to a head Sounds more like none of them are doing their jobs and should be outof office and off the payroll They should all just resign They arent doing the job thatwas assigned to them362011 32559 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Image
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 29 of 77
Shopsteward wroteA crime was committed here It began with a violation of the Publics trust by the peoplewho allowed this contract to be signed in the first place What a jokeHow many moreof these jobs are hidden in the budgets of our Schools There needs to be a thouroughcleaning of all thses tyeps of employees everywhere At the State County Municipaland Scool board level and the appointed Authorities too Everyone screams about theUnions but whenever you hear of some great big abuse it turns out the person wasnteven in the UnionClean up this mess first Mr Christie before yougo after the little guys It will save us all a lot more money362011 101606 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser ImageShopsteward wroteI still dont get itHow is a part time24 hr a week job worth so much This is aprime example of the waste that is giving the public workers a bad nameThe onlyproblem is it isnt some Union personIts management and its the same all over This isjust the tip of the iceberg they scream about the Unions but the real waste is in jobs likethis oneNo way this job or the thousands of others like it should be paid so well99465 PLUS BENEFITS incrediblethere should be a lawandthe person gets a pension based on that bloated salarytooThere should be other people losing their jobs not for theseperation aggreement but for letting this evenhappen352011 101125 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagethesplits wroteI guess this is Runnemedes version of a shared service352011 73450 PM
User Imagethesplits wroteLooks like its the same old Runnemede and I thought we voted for change Mayor352011 73202 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagesavetheschools wroteFrom what I understand and I live in town the board went into this separationagreement because the BA would have had a potential lawsuit and it would have costthe school district and tax payers a ton of money Much more than they are spendingnow And yes it is one school board member who was apparently corrupt Just one Theyoung man who was mentioned in the article has been OPRA requesting items and willget to the bottom of this situation with the former BA and the certain board memberBut that is just one person The other members (except for the one who was justarrested and resigned) are good people and did nothing wrong to the district Thisformer BA and her friend who was hired as the maint supervisor have been a hot topicfor a few years Ask the employees they were awful and needed to go It is awful thatthis money was not spent on our children It was a trainwreck from the beginning and ifI recall correctly when the hiring took place only one of the members voted no and that
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 30 of 77
was the local high school teacher metioned in another post Runnemede schools arefantastic and maybe the new people running for election will get some answers andmake some changes And maybe the BOE member who was mentioned by employees asbeing the reason why there could be a possible lawsuit should just resign I understandadmin make good money but they also need to be accountable for their actions and ifthe BA made a hostile environment and was supported by one BOE member both shouldbe gonenot just the BA352011 33207 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagecookmom wroteWhere is Gov Christies veto power352011 30321 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagecookmom wroteThis all happened with a local police officer and a FOP member and local high schoolteacher and member of the NJEA on the board The Runnemede Board is looking alotlike the DRPA and was this group picked by the new Mayor352011 30042 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagesickofpolsnj wroteThe real truth is the Board of Education member and Brazelton and the unethicalsituation that THEY created The questionable contracts and underhanded deals There isa certain Board Member that hopes that this ends here well it doesnt There is not aTeacher or employee in Runnemede Schools that would defend Brazelton same goes forSomerdale And many are willing to bring out MANY of the things that Brazelton did todestroy the district The ENTIRE Runnemede School Community is thrilled that Brazeltonis gone Snoopysam is clearly one of two people Kelly or the Board Member shouldwe name names Hows that Mayors race looking352011 114254 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser ImageShopsteward wrote$99465 plus benefits How much does she pay for her share of those benefitsor are they free to her Her replacement only works 24 hours a week are we being toldthat she got that much money for a part time job What is the matter with theidiots that hired her to begin withNo one should get that kind of money for a part timeThat is an awful lot of money for that kind of job We should not be surprised at all Thiskind of thing is everywhere in Camden CountyIts the NORMAL way of doingbusiness352011 113922 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagelookfar111 wroteYep same old story hire someone for $98000 when 10 equally qualified people woulddo it for 60k with a 20 year top out at 75 k Then a sweetheart adios gift And the cherry
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 31 of 77
on top Another tax increase for the people God I hate what the democrat machinehave done to this once great state352011 111649 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser ImageSnoopysam wrotesickofpolsnj you must be on ot those employees that Brazelton held accountable forHER actions You are right there is so much more to this story and when the real truthscome out there will be some emplopyeesadministratorsboard members hanging theirheads in shame Talk about wasting taxpayer dollars take a look at some of the lazyincompetent employees that Brazelton had to deal withand their HUGE mistakes thathad to be corrected which cost the taxpayers thousands upon thousands of dollars352011 94250 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagesickofpolsnj wroteYou are exactly correct A teacher would never get a sweatheart deal like this I wonderwhich Board Member it was that was mentioned in that letter Did you read the blog thatthis all came out on it has way more details than this articlehttpdansviewrunnemedewordpresscom352011 92934 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagesickofpolsnj wroteOnly thing is Runnemede never had these issues Somerdale had the same EXACT issueswith Brazelton Administrators arent allowed to comment however talk to the teachersand employees off record they will tell you all about Kelly352011 92726 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagesickofpolsnj wroteThere is so much more to this story I hope the CP will run a follow up 1 Look into therealtionship and hiring surrounding Doug the maintenance supervisor 2 Check intoBrazeltons past employment Somerdale Schools 3 Brazelton is rumored to be hired atthe completion of the settlement in Deptford 4 Look into unethical practices between aBoard Member and Brazelton 5 And what about the other Board member that wasrecently charged with a serious crime352011 92315 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imageicallbullschit wroteOnce again the government tries to pin their mistakes on an individual when they screwup royally What the paper fails to report is the other side Maybe years and years ofmismanagement and patronage were uncovered and it became a hostile environmentwhen people got called on their actions and the same old routine was stopped Maybethe school board realized it would be cheaper to pay one than to pay many for theirmistakes Maybe the school board was willing to pay in order to keep their dirty littlesecrets covered up Maybe the resident should look deeper into the actions of the schoolboard and the rest of the administration Maybe I am wrong but it seems that the board
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 32 of 77
got called on some issues and now they are attacking one individual to cover theirtracks They seem to be acting like the GREAT WIZARD OF OZ Pay no attention to theidiots behind the curtain we are the all powerful and all knowing school board Pull backthe curtain people because there are people behind there that are faking their waythrough and going to wind up costing the district millions Just saying352011 85642 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagecookmom wroteSchool board President Colleen Kurth said it was much easier to go with a separationagreement than pay more legal fees She compared paying Brazelton to paying ateacher out sick while a substitute fills in The job just has to go on Kurth said I amconfused A teacher out SICK is NOT the same as a HOSTILE work enviorment How cana medical condition be compared to a person being accused of a hostile workenviorment A teacher would be REQUIRED to use their sick days~ since this is beingcompared to an illness ~was Brazelton REQUIRED to give up her sickvacation pay orwas that part of the dealWas she also paid for those days Wouldnt we all love to becollecting a salary from two towns As now she is being paid by Runnemde AND acurrent SCHOOL district where she is currently employed THIS is the waste in ourSchool districts352011 83552 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imageneocon wroteShe is part of the Protected Classes All you need to know is that she is better thanyou so just keep moveing along Nothing to see here352011 81912 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report Abuse
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 33 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 34 of 77
New Jersey Libertarian PartyOpen Government Advocacy Project
John Paff Chairman
PO Box 5424
Somerset NJ 08875-5424
Phone 732-873-1251 - Fax 908-325-0129
Email lpsmcpoboxcom
May 7 2011
Hon Colleen Kurth President and members of the
Runnemede Board of Education
505 W Third Ave
Runnemede NJ 08078 (via e-mail to vcarmodyrunnemedeschoolsorg )
Dear President Kurth and Board members
I write both individually and on behalf the New Jersey Libertarian Partys Open
Government Advocacy Project to comment on 1) the manner in which the Board of Education
goes into nonpublic (ie executive or closed) session and 2) the level of detail contained within
the Boardrsquos executive session minutes
Issue 1 Executive Session resolutions
As you are aware the Senator Byron M Baer Open Public Meetings Act requires public
bodies such as the Runnemede Board of Education to publicly pass a resolution before
excluding the public from a meeting The statute that requires the resolution states
NJSA 104-13mdashClosed meetings resolution to conduct
No public body shall exclude the public from any meeting to discuss any
matter described in subsection 7 b (104-12) until the public body shall
first adopt a resolution at a meeting to which the public shall be admitted
a Stating the general nature of the subject to be discussed and
b Stating as precisely as possible the time when and the circumstances
under which the discussion conducted in closed session of the public body
can be disclosed to the public
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 35 of 77
2
By way of a recent records request I received resolutions which purport to authorize
executive sessions intended to be held by the Board of Education on July 28 2010 (2 sessions)
August 20 2010 February 2 1011 February 23 2011 (2 sessions) and March 2 2011 Those
resolutions which are virtually identical to each other state
Executive Session to discuss student matters personnel contractual and
legal matters [time and a statement as to whether action will be
taken]
[identity of maker of motion etc]
Resolved that pursuant to Section 8 of the Public Meetings Act the public
shall be excluded from that portion of the meeting involving the discussion
of personnel legal and contractual matters Further resolved that
discussion of such subject matters discussed in Executive Session can be
disclosed to public upon official action if any at the conclusion of the
executive session or at a public session at some later date
I dont think that this form of resolution satisfies NJSA 104-13 because it gives the
public no real sense of what is being privately discussed1 To paraphrase the highest court of of
another state a body which only announces ldquolegal mattersrdquo or ldquopersonnel negotiationsrdquo for
going into executive session has said nothing It might has well have stated to the audience
ldquoLadies and gentlemen we are going into executive sessionrdquo and stopped there Hinds County
Board of Supervisors v Common Cause of Mississippi 551 So2d 107 114 (MS 1989)
Of course there can be no dispute that the Board of Education often has legitimate
reasons to meet in nonpublic session Among these reasons is the need to prevent the adverse
parties in litigation or contract negotiations from gaining an unfair advantage and to allow
members of the governing body to debate and deliberate personnel matters without public
scrutiny or participation But the need to discuss matters privately should not prevent the
public from being informed as precisely as possible of the topics that are being privately
discussed
For example suppose that Runnemede Board is being sued by a Mr Jones who was
injured after he slipped and fell on what he claims to be negligently maintained school
property Since the lawsuit is already a public record there is no public purpose served by
vaguely describing a private discussion of it as ldquostudent matters personnel contractual and
legal mattersrdquo Rather the resolution should at the very least describe the private discussion as
1 In January 2007 when I most recently litigated this issue Middlesex County Superior Court Judge Alexander P
Waugh issued a written decision in which he agreed with other court decisions that closed session resolutions
should contain as much information as is consistent with full public knowledge without doing any harm to the
public interest Judge Waughs decision and other case documents are on the Web at
httpogtfarchiveorgOGTFMonroeBOEWebreadypdf
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 36 of 77
3
ldquoDiscussion of slip and fall negligence suit Jones v Runnemede Board Docket No CAM-L-
012345-11rdquo This way the public has a very good sense of what the Boardrsquos private discussion is
about while the ability of the Board to develop its lawsuit strategy is not undermined
Using the same example suppose that Jonesrsquo attorney sent the Boardrsquos attorney an offer
to fully settle the lawsuit upon the Boardrsquos payment of $20000 While the Board would
obviously need to discuss how to respond to the offer in private lest Jones or his attorney
would be in the audience witnessing the discussion there is no reason why the public cannot be
informed in the NJSA 104-13 resolution that the Board will meet in private to discuss ldquoa
settlement offer received from the Plaintiff in the slip and fall negligence suit known as Jones v
Runnemede Board Docket No CAM-L-012345-11 in which the Plaintiff offers to settle the suit
in exchange for the Board paying him $20000rdquo While it may initially seem that this would
provide ldquotoo muchrdquo information to the public this concern disappears once it is realized that
the sole purpose of the exception2 that allows litigation matters to be discussed in private is to
keep the adverse party to the litigation in the dark regarding the Boardrsquos position3 Since in this
example the adverse party (ie Jones) already knows that he offered to settle the lawsuit for
$20000 there is no legitimate reason why the public should not also know of the tendered
settlement offer
As another example suppose that a personnel matter such as whether or not a Mrs
Smith a public works employee should be disciplined because of repeatedly arriving late to
work is to be discussed in closed session In such a case the amount of detail set forth in the
NJSA 104-13 resolution should correspond to the amount of detail that the Board and its
attorney predict will be publicly disclosed in the closed meetingrsquos minutes when those minutes
are made public
The standard that the Board is to use when determining how much information about a
personnel matter is to be disclosed in the closed sessionrsquos minutes is set forth in South Jersey
Publishing Company Inc v New Jersey Expressway Authority 124 NJ 478 (1991) That
standard is that a) the public needs information if it is properly fulfill its role of evaluating the
wisdom of governmental action or a decision not to act b) that New Jerseys strong public
policy requires that a public bodyrsquos actions and decisions to not act be disclosed in the bodys
closed meeting minutes along with sufficient facts and information to permit the public to
understand and appraise the reasonableness of the bodys determination and c) to the extent a
cognizable privacy interest may be compromised by the required disclosure the extent of
disclosure may be modified through redactions of the minutes provided the public interest in
disclosure is not subverted
2 NJSA104-12(b)(7) is to prevent adverse parties to litigation and contracts from learning the details of the
public bodyrsquos negotiation tactics and litigation strategy3 See the discussion in Paff v Washington Township Docket No MER-L-2205-07 and Nevin v Asbury Park City
Board 2005 WL 2847974 (App Div November 1 2005) which are on-line at
httpogtfarchiveorgOGTFWashingtonpdf (Nevin begins at page 44 of the PDF file at the link)
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 37 of 77
4
Thus regardless of whether the Board disciplines Ms Smith or chooses to not impose
discipline due to her lateness the outcome should be recorded in the closed meeting minutes
The question of whether that entry in the minutes should be redacted before the minutes are
made public requires a balancing of Ms Smithrsquos interest in keeping the disciplinary matter
private against the publicrsquos interest in effectively monitoring the Board If the Board with
counselrsquos advice determines after balancing these interests that the outcome will be published
unredacted in the closed sessionrsquos minutes (ie if the minutes will disclose to the public eg that
ldquoMs Smith was suspended for three days on account of her habitual latenessrdquo) then the exact
nature of the matter (ie that ldquothe Board will discuss disciplining Ms Smith for excessive
latenessrdquo) should be set forth in the closed meetingrsquos NJSA 104-13 resolution Inversely if the
Board determines that Ms Smithrsquos privacy interest exceeds the publicrsquos right to know then less
information (eg ldquothe Board will discuss disciplining an employee for excessive latenessrdquo)
should be set forth in the closed meetingrsquos NJSA 104-13 resolution
In other words if the officer or employee being discussed doesnt have a privacy interest
sufficient to withstand a citizens request for the executive session minutes why should not the
public know the topic of the executive session prior to it occurring
Irsquove attached as Exhibit pages 1 -3 is a model resolution that I would like the Board to
use in the future
Issue 2 Executive Session minutes
Attached as Exhibit Page 4 as an example are the Boardrsquos July 28 2010 executive session
minutes It is troubling that a meeting that lasted over an hour is being summed up in a single
sentence ldquoMr Phil Stern addressed the Board of Education about personnel issuesrdquo These
minutes are not ldquoreasonably comprehensiblerdquo as required by NJSA 104-14
The purpose of closed meeting minutes is not merely to inform the public of whatoccurred during the private session but also to create a record for the Board membersthemselves A Board member who is newly elected in 2012 should be able by referringsolely to the minutes to figure out what issues the Board addressed during any previouslyheld closed meeting This hypothetical Board member after reading the July 28 2010closed minutes could not possibly figure out which employees or officials Mr Stern wastalking about
Better practice would be to record closed minutes that are much morecomprehensive but to redact that material that must be shielded from public view Forexample the minutes could have said
Mr Stern addressed the Board of Education about the habitualtardiness of 2nd grade teacher Mary Doe and her propensity to eatlibrary paste and scream hysterically during fire drills Herecommended that she be sent for psychiatric evaluation
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 38 of 77
5
Of course if a member of the public requested these hypothetical minutes the Boardmay need to redact them in order to protect privacy interests The point however is thatregardless of whether unredacted closed meeting minutes are ever released to the publicthey should contain sufficient details so that the Board members themselves can monthsor years later know what was discussed
Attached as Exhibit pages 5 ndash 9 is an order recently entered in Schmidt et al v City of
Gloucester City et al Docket No CAM-L-1287-11 As you can see paraA(3) supports my position
that the Boardrsquos minutes are not ldquoreasonably comprehensiblerdquo as required by law
Conclusion
Since some public bodies do not take my requests for Meetings Act compliance seriously
I regret having to inform the Board that I will sue for declaratory and injunctive relief in
accordance with NJSA 104-16 unless I receive assurances from the Boardmdashwithin a few days
after its May 10 2011 meetingmdashthat it will work in good faith to improve the amount of
information in both its closed session resolutions and minutes If the Boardrsquos agenda is already
set for the May 10 2011 meeting please at least acknowledge this letter and let me know the
date of the meeting at which it will be considered
Thank you very much for your attention to this matter I look forward to hearing from
you
Sincerely
John Paff
cc Philip E Stern Esq w enc (via e-mail to psternasgllawcom )
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 39 of 77
RUNNEMEDE BOARD OF EDUCATIONRESOLUTION NO ___________
AUTHORIZING EXECUTIVE SESSION
WHEREAS while the Sen Byron M Baer Open Public Meetings Act (NJSA 104-6 et seq) requires allmeetings of the Runnemede Board of Education to be held in public NJSA 104-12(b) sets forth nine (9)types of matters that may lawfully be discussed in ldquoExecutive Sessionrdquo ie without the public beingpermitted to attend and
WHEREAS the Runnemede Board of Education has determined that _____ (insert number) issues arepermitted by NJSA 104-12(b) to be discussed without the public in attendance shall be discussed duringan Executive Session to be held on _________________________ 20____ at _______ PM and
WHEREAS the nine (9) exceptions to public meetings set forth in NJSA 104-12(b) are listed below andnext to each exception is a box within which the number of issues to be privately discussed that fall withinthat exception shall be written and after each exception is a space where additional information that willdisclose as much information about the discussion as possible without undermining the purpose of theexception shall be written
ldquo(1) Any matter which by express provision of Federal law State statute or rule of courtshall be rendered confidential or excluded from public discussionrdquo The legal citation to theprovision(s) at issue is__________________________ and the nature of the matter described asspecifically as possible without undermining the need for confidentiality is _______________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(2) Any matter in which the release of information would impair a right to receive fundsfrom the federal governmentrdquo The nature of the matter described as specifically as possiblewithout undermining the need for confidentiality is _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(3) Any material the disclosure of which constitutes an unwarranted invasion of individualprivacy such as any records data reports recommendations or other personal material ofany educational training social service medical health custodial child protectionrehabilitation legal defense welfare housing relocation insurance and similar program orinstitution operated by a public body pertaining to any specific individual admitted to orserved by such institution or program including but not limited to information relative tothe individuals personal and family circumstances and any material pertaining toadmission discharge treatment progress or condition of any individual unless theindividual concerned (or in the case of a minor or incompetent his guardian) shall requestin writing that the same be disclosed publiclyrdquo The nature of the matter described asspecifically as possible without undermining the need for confidentiality is______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(4) Any collective bargaining agreement or the terms and conditions of which are proposedfor inclusion in any collective bargaining agreement including the negotiation of terms andconditions with employees or representatives of employees of the public bodyrdquo The collectivebargaining contract(s) discussed are between the Board and ____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Exhibit Page 1Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 40 of 77
ldquo(5) Any matter involving the purchase lease or acquisition of real property with publicfunds the setting of bank rates or investment of public funds where it could adversely affectthe public interest if discussion of such matters were disclosedrdquo The nature of the matterdescribed as specifically as possible without undermining the need for confidentiality is____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(6) Any tactics and techniques utilized in protecting the safety and property of the publicprovided that their disclosure could impair such protection Any investigations of violationsor possible violations of the lawrdquo The nature of the matter described as specifically as possiblewithout undermining the need for confidentiality is ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(7) Any pending or anticipated litigation or contract negotiation in which the public body isor may become a party Any matters falling within the attorney-client privilege to the extentthat confidentiality is required in order for the attorney to exercise his ethicalduties as a lawyerrdquo The parties to and docket numbers of each item of litigation andor theparties to each contract discussed are __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ andnature of the discussion described as specifically as possible without undermining the need forconfidentiality is ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(8) Any matter involving the employment appointment termination of employment termsand conditions of employment evaluation of the performance promotion or disciplining ofany specific prospective public officer or employee or current public officer or employeeemployed or appointed by the public body unless all individual employees or appointees whoserights could be adversely affected request in writing that such matter or matters be discussed ata public meetingrdquo Subject to the balancing of the publicrsquos interest and the employeersquos privacyrights under South Jersey Publishing Co v New Jersey Expressway Authority 124 NJ 478 theemployee(s) and nature of the discussion described as specifically as possible withoutundermining the need for confidentiality are _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(9) Any deliberation of a public body occurring after a public hearing that may result in theimposition of a specific civil penalty upon the responding party or the suspension or loss of alicense or permit belonging to the responding party as a result of an act of omission forwhich the responding party bears responsibilityrdquo The nature of the matter described asspecifically as possible without undermining the need for confidentiality is______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
WHEREAS the length of the Executive Session is estimated to be ________ minutes after which the publicmeeting of the Board shall (circle one) reconvene and immediately adjourn or reconvene and proceed withbusiness
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Runnemede Board of Education will go into ExecutiveSession for only the above stated reasons
Exhibit Page 2Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 41 of 77
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board hereby declares that its discussion of the aforementionedsubject(s) will be made public at a time when the publicrsquos interest in disclosure is greater than any privacy orgovernmental interest being protected from disclosure For each of the above items the estimated date bywhich such disclosure can be made andor the occurrence that needs to take place before disclosure can bemade are listed below (attach separate sheet if necessary)
Subject of Discussion Estimated Date Necessary Occurrence
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Clerk at the present public meeting shall read aloud enough ofthis resolution so that members of the public in attendance can understand as precisely as possible thenature of the matters that will privately discussed
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Clerk on the next business day following this meeting shallfurnish a copy of this resolution to any member of the public who requests one at the fees allowed byNJSA 471A-1 et seq
_________________________________Board President
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS ATRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTIONAPPROVED BY THE RUNNEMEDE BOARD OF EDUCATION AT ITSPUBLIC MEETING HELD ON ______________________20___
_______________________________________Board Secretary
Exhibit Page 3Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 42 of 77
Exhibit Page 4Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 43 of 77
Exhibit Page 5Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 44 of 77
Exhibit Page 6Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 45 of 77
Exhibit Page 7Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 46 of 77
Exhibit Page 8Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 47 of 77
Exhibit Page 9Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 48 of 77
Subject Records RequestFrom John Paff ltpaffpoboxcomgtDate Sat 07 May 2011 161444 -0400To vcarmodyrunnemedeschoolsorgCC psternasgllawcom
Ms Carmody
Please accept this e-mail as my request for government records inaccordance with the Open Public Records Act (OPRA) and the commonlaw right of access Please respond and send all responsivedocuments to me via e-mail at paffpoboxcom If e-mail is notpossible please fax responses and responsive records to me at908-325-0129 Also I would appreciate it if you wouldacknowledge your receipt of this e-mail
Background
In response to a records request I recently received redactedexecutive session minutes for the following dates July 28 2010(first session) August 26 2010 February 2 2011 February 232011 (two sessions) and March 2 2011 Although Mr Stern providedme with a sheet entitled Documents Exempt From OPRA request thatpurports to explain these redactions I am still unclear as to whythe matter was redacted and whether it was lawfully redacted
First I dont understand references such as NJSA 471A-11(12)(c) The version of OPRA that I have (plus every other oneIve seen) does not have internal numbers within NJSA471A-11 Am I correct that NJSA 471A-11(12)(c) isintended to refer to the exemption for records in connection withcollective negotiations including documents and statements ofstrategy or negotiating position and that NJSA 471A-11(7)is intended to refer to any record within the attorney-clientprivilege This paragraph shall not be construed as exempting fromaccess attorney or consultant bills or invoices except that suchbills or invoices may be redacted to remove any informationprotected by the attorney-client privilege Please advise
Second even if I correctly corresponded the claimed exemptions tothe OPRA statute I have no way of knowing whether the mattersredacted are actually exempt from access When a custodiansuppresses any portion of any requested record NJSA471A-5(g) requires him or her to state the ldquospecific basisrdquo foreach suppressed element Beyond stating the ldquospecific basisrdquo foreach suppressed element he or she is required to ldquoproduce
Records Request
1 of 2 622011 810 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 49 of 77
specific reliable evidence sufficient to meet a statutorilyrecognized basis for confidentialityrdquo Courier News v HunterdonCounty Prosecutorrsquos Office 358 NJ Super 373 382-83 (App Div2003) Further he or she must explain each suppression in amanner that ldquowill enable other parties to assess the applicabilityof the privilege or protectionrdquo Paff v New Jersey Department ofLabor Board of Review 379 NJ Super 346 354-55 (2005)(quoting R 410-2(e))
Records requested
Runnemede Board of Education minutes for the following dates July28 2010 (728 pm session only) August 26 2010 February 22011 February 23 2011 (both sessions) and March 2 2011 Iwould like these minutes redacted as narrowly as possible if atall For each redaction I request a written explanation thatmeets the requirements of the case law cited above
cc Phil Stern
Records Request
2 of 2 622011 810 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 50 of 77
Subject Re Fwd Runnemede Board of Education Open PublicMeetings ActFrom John Paff ltpaffpoboxcomgtDate Mon 09 May 2011 134726 -0400To Nancy Ward ltnwardrunnemedeschoolsorggt
Thank you
On 592011 116 PM Nancy Ward wrote
Mr Paff
The Board has named me Custodian of Records Please direct allfuturecommunication to me The May 10 2011 meeting is theRe-organization ofthe Runnemede Board of Education The agenda is set and is verycomprehensive I intend to defer the letter and any discussionregardingits content to the next regular meeting the date of which willbe setat the re-organization tomorrow night In keeping with thedistrictsmeeting pattern that will be May 25 2011
Nancy BWard EdD
Superintendent of Schools
-----Original Message-----From John PaffSent 572011 42300 PMTo nwardrunnemedeschoolsorgCc vcarmodyrunnemedeschoolsorg psternasgllawcomSubject Fwd Runnemede Board of Education Open Public MeetingsAct
Here is another e-mail in case my original one should have beendirected to Ms Ward and not Ms Carmody
JP
-------- Original Message --------Subject Runnemede Board of Education Open Public Meetings ActDate Sat 07 May 2011 152319 -0400From John Paff
Re Fwd Runnemede Board of Education Open Public Meetings Act
1 of 2 622011 811 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 51 of 77
Reply-To paffpoboxcomTo vcarmodyrunnemedeschoolsorg psternasgllawcom
Ms Carmody and Mr Stern
Attached is a letter that I would like the Board to consider atits May10 2011 meeting Would you please a) acknowledge receipt of theletterand b) distribute it to all the Board members
Note that the last paragraph of the letter indicates that I willfilesuit against the Board if the issues in the letter arentaddressedSo if the Boards agenda for the May 10th meeting is so tightthat myletter cannot be accommodated please advise me of such andprovide ameeting date where my letter will be addressed so that I knowthat I amnot being ignored
Thank you
John Paff ChairmanNew Jersey Libertarian PartysOpen Government Advocacy Project
Re Fwd Runnemede Board of Education Open Public Meetings Act
2 of 2 622011 811 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 52 of 77
Subject OPRA RequestFrom Philip Stern ltpsternasgllawcomgtDate Fri 20 May 2011 161015 -0500To paffpoboxcom ltpaffpoboxcomgtCC Nancy Ward ltnwardrunnemedeschoolsorggt
Mr Paff please find attached to this email a response to your request forbusiness records Please note that in providing you with the attachedrecords the Runnemede Borough Board of Education waives no rightsregarding the attorney-client privilege Do not hesitate to call me if youhave any questions Phil Stern
Philip E SternAdams Stern Gutierrez amp Lattiboudere LLCThe Legal Center1037 Raymond Blvd Suite 710Newark New Jersey 07102(973) 735-2742 (office telephone)(201) 914-2415 (cellular telephone)(973) 735-2743 (office telefax)
May 20 Paff responsepdf
Content-DescriptionMay 20 Paffresponsepdf
Content-Type applicationpdf
Content-Encoding base64
OPRA Request
1 of 1 622011 815 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 53 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 54 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 55 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 56 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 57 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 58 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 59 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 60 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 61 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 62 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 63 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 64 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 65 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 66 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 67 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 68 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 69 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 70 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 71 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 72 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 73 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 74 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 75 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 76 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 77 of 77
- Civil Complaint
- Exhibits
-
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 13 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 14 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 15 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 16 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 17 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 18 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 19 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 20 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 21 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 22 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 23 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 24 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 25 of 77
Idled officials payout riles Runnemede
By BARBARA S ROTHSCHILD bull Courier-Post Staff bull March 5 2011
RUNNEMEDE mdash Although the school district is paying Business Administrator Kelly PetersBrazelton her full salary to stay home while paying for an interim employee RunnemedeSuperintendent Nancy Ward said it could have cost more not to have a separationagreement
New Jersey is a very litigious state she said In order to avoid litigation which neveris a good thing a separation agreement gives you a certain outcome
Brazelton a Deptford resident and the former business administrator for the SomerdalePublic School District began working for Runnemede schools in August 2008 Her mostrecent contract for July 1 2010 through June 30 is for $99465 plus benefits
But the relationship soured and the district would not comment on specifics citingconfidentiality
A letter from staff members written to Ward and the school board in July 2010 gaveexamples of a hostile work environment that they said was created by the businessadministrator
Brazelton could not be reached Her attorney Joseph Betley of Mount Laurel said hisclient signed the separation agreement in good faith
There was a disagreement between the board and Kelly he said It was resolved andboth sides decided to move on
She disputes any and all allegations regarding a hostile work environment It wassimply Kelly doing her job
The separation agreement and release dated Oct 20 stipulates Brazelton be placed ona paid leave of absence from Sept 23 to April 15 at which time she would irrevocablyresign
School board President Colleen Kurth said it was much easier to go with a separationagreement than pay more legal fees
She compared paying Brazelton to paying a teacher out sick while a substitute fills in
The job just has to go on Kurth said
Interim Business Administrator Valerie Carmody who retired from the same post in EastGreenwich last year was hired Dec 1 at $60 per hour 24 hours maximum per weekHer contract ends June 30
New Jersey School Boards Association spokesman Mike Yaple said such separationagreements are infrequent
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 26 of 77
No school board willingly enters into an agreement like this he insisted But eventhough its not a popular decision its the lesser of two evils
Residents unhappy about the districts handling of the situation include Dan Conard ajournalism student at Rowan University Conard writes a blog where he discusses schooldistrict and municipal matters To comment on this topic he filed Open Public RecordsAct (OPRA) document requests
I just wanted to get it out there so people know what is going on Conard said
Ward said she has no quarrel with the student but believes Brazeltons case is anunusual circumstance
It (the separation agreement) was the most responsible thing the district could havedone she insisted Was it a bitter pill to swallow It took the board (a while) beforethey felt it was something they could do but it makes the most sense
Ward said the part-time arrangement with Carmody is working out well and that as thedistrict improves efficiency it is unlikely another full-time business administrator will behired particularly when Executive County Superintendent Peggy Nicolosi has advisedagainst it
Among the options being considered are another part-time business administrator or ashared-service agreement with another district
Ward said she would have preferred the money being expended in this case be spent oneducational programs and teachers particularly this year
Although voters passed Runnemedes 2010-11 budget while many others were defeatedlast April the district of 853 students in K-8 lost six staffers and streamlined its gifted-and-talented program after state aid was cut
Ward also defended the decision to keep a maintenance techniciansupervisor positioncreated in 2008 noting it has saved at least $145000 each year
Mark Speck of Voorhees earns $50000 in the post Through June 2010 it was filled byDoug McGarry a former building and grounds supervisor in the Somerdale district Heearned $60000 in Runnemede but had more experience than Speck Ward said
Before Brazelton arrived in Runnemede the business administrator also served asmaintenance supervisor Ward said that actually cost the district more because it had topay outside maintenance workers sometimes for faulty work
Many things had been done to the facilities that were not to the boards satisfactionshe said That first year with our own maintenance person we saved $145000 becausewe hired a person who fixed things
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 27 of 77
Speck works with vendors going over bids and quotes and also does minor repairs thatno longer have to be paid for piecemeal Ward said the position is staying in the 2011-2012 budget adopted preliminarily on Wednesday
Hes the guy whos here at 4 am making sure weve got snow plows when we needthem Ward said Hes dirty and sweaty -- and hes excellent
Ward said the budget sent to the county includes a $78 annual tax increase for theowner of a home assessed at the $97800 borough average but does not cut staff orprograms
Kurth hopes to tweak the budget and lower the tax hike before it is introduced to thepublic on March 23 But she agreed the maintenance supervisor will stay
That was an investment on the part of the school district Kurth said
Reach Barbara S Rothschild at (856) 486-2416 or barothschildcamdengannettcom
--Comments
User Imageamonkeycoulddoit wroteThe mayor cant hear you because she doesnt even know how to turn on a computerNot that it was a requirement that the mayor should know how to use one I think theonly requirement is that they have a pulse And she does but barely372011 12406 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imageamonkeycoulddoit wroteTo sickofpolsnj it does seem that snoopysam has some inside information And whenyou say hows that mayors race looking I hope that you dont mean that someone fromthe disfunctional school board is going to run for mayor or council or some other electedposition considering the mess that they made on the school board372011 11832 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imageamonkeycoulddoit wroteIf the school board president had listened to staff when the hostil work enviroment issuestarted then she might not be in this pickle She should have spent the money on thelegal fees because if everything is true about the hostile enviroment then they wouldhave won the lawsuit hands down and not had to pay out anything and gotten their legalfees back Another example of elected officials not capable of doing the job they are inLets hope that some people come out of the woodwork to run for school board peoplewho care about the kids and the taxpayers372011 11309 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imageamonkeycoulddoit wrote
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 28 of 77
The school boad is not as inept as the mayor and council You dont have to be a collegegraduate or or even be able to read or write to get an elected position in runnemedeThe 2 new council members got elected because the are involved in the union andeveryone who supports the union came out to vote And the new mayor must have a lotof friends But now after the few months they have been in office it is clear to see thatthey are not able to handle the job Mayor14 is right that the people of Runnemedevoted because they thought they would get something in return for their vote but itlooks like they were wrong In the upcoming elections for school board and council votefor the person who will do the best job whether you like them or not Dont just vote forsomeone because you are told to372011 10214 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagethemayor14 wrotei am so glad this article was written and it clearly points out how inept the runnemedeboard of education actually is the board of education is not elected based on businessand education talent the elections are nothing more than a popularity contest i dontknow how other towns operate but runnemede boro is a total joke when it come toelections be it school board or general elections i wish everyone would get their headsout of their A$$ and truly investigate the school board canidates that are running forelection VOTE WITH YOUR HEAD NOT WITH YOUR HEART362011 91350 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagesavetheschools wroteSeveral people are running for the board for four open seats I signed a petition todayfor a new woman running Members are not paid If you live in Runnemede shopstewardyou have until Tuesday to get a petition submitted I asked and found out there is only 5people on average at the BOE meetings every month in Runnemede I hope more peoplestart to go I plan on it myself And we all need to go every month not just when weread negative press about our schools That is the only way we would all stay informedand not rely on the young man submitting OPRA requests Our town has always beenabout the kids and it needs to get back that way362011 80936 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser ImageShopsteward wroteWhy did it take one young man sending in OPRA requests to bring all this to lightWhy are you relying upon him to get to the bottom of it You say The other members(except for the one who was just arrested and resigned) are good people and didnothing wrong to the district and that might be true except for the fact that theyallowed that incredible salary and benefits to be given out and even though all kinds ofrumors were flying around it took an outsider with OPRA requests to bring this ghastlypimple to a head Sounds more like none of them are doing their jobs and should be outof office and off the payroll They should all just resign They arent doing the job thatwas assigned to them362011 32559 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Image
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 29 of 77
Shopsteward wroteA crime was committed here It began with a violation of the Publics trust by the peoplewho allowed this contract to be signed in the first place What a jokeHow many moreof these jobs are hidden in the budgets of our Schools There needs to be a thouroughcleaning of all thses tyeps of employees everywhere At the State County Municipaland Scool board level and the appointed Authorities too Everyone screams about theUnions but whenever you hear of some great big abuse it turns out the person wasnteven in the UnionClean up this mess first Mr Christie before yougo after the little guys It will save us all a lot more money362011 101606 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser ImageShopsteward wroteI still dont get itHow is a part time24 hr a week job worth so much This is aprime example of the waste that is giving the public workers a bad nameThe onlyproblem is it isnt some Union personIts management and its the same all over This isjust the tip of the iceberg they scream about the Unions but the real waste is in jobs likethis oneNo way this job or the thousands of others like it should be paid so well99465 PLUS BENEFITS incrediblethere should be a lawandthe person gets a pension based on that bloated salarytooThere should be other people losing their jobs not for theseperation aggreement but for letting this evenhappen352011 101125 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagethesplits wroteI guess this is Runnemedes version of a shared service352011 73450 PM
User Imagethesplits wroteLooks like its the same old Runnemede and I thought we voted for change Mayor352011 73202 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagesavetheschools wroteFrom what I understand and I live in town the board went into this separationagreement because the BA would have had a potential lawsuit and it would have costthe school district and tax payers a ton of money Much more than they are spendingnow And yes it is one school board member who was apparently corrupt Just one Theyoung man who was mentioned in the article has been OPRA requesting items and willget to the bottom of this situation with the former BA and the certain board memberBut that is just one person The other members (except for the one who was justarrested and resigned) are good people and did nothing wrong to the district Thisformer BA and her friend who was hired as the maint supervisor have been a hot topicfor a few years Ask the employees they were awful and needed to go It is awful thatthis money was not spent on our children It was a trainwreck from the beginning and ifI recall correctly when the hiring took place only one of the members voted no and that
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 30 of 77
was the local high school teacher metioned in another post Runnemede schools arefantastic and maybe the new people running for election will get some answers andmake some changes And maybe the BOE member who was mentioned by employees asbeing the reason why there could be a possible lawsuit should just resign I understandadmin make good money but they also need to be accountable for their actions and ifthe BA made a hostile environment and was supported by one BOE member both shouldbe gonenot just the BA352011 33207 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagecookmom wroteWhere is Gov Christies veto power352011 30321 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagecookmom wroteThis all happened with a local police officer and a FOP member and local high schoolteacher and member of the NJEA on the board The Runnemede Board is looking alotlike the DRPA and was this group picked by the new Mayor352011 30042 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagesickofpolsnj wroteThe real truth is the Board of Education member and Brazelton and the unethicalsituation that THEY created The questionable contracts and underhanded deals There isa certain Board Member that hopes that this ends here well it doesnt There is not aTeacher or employee in Runnemede Schools that would defend Brazelton same goes forSomerdale And many are willing to bring out MANY of the things that Brazelton did todestroy the district The ENTIRE Runnemede School Community is thrilled that Brazeltonis gone Snoopysam is clearly one of two people Kelly or the Board Member shouldwe name names Hows that Mayors race looking352011 114254 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser ImageShopsteward wrote$99465 plus benefits How much does she pay for her share of those benefitsor are they free to her Her replacement only works 24 hours a week are we being toldthat she got that much money for a part time job What is the matter with theidiots that hired her to begin withNo one should get that kind of money for a part timeThat is an awful lot of money for that kind of job We should not be surprised at all Thiskind of thing is everywhere in Camden CountyIts the NORMAL way of doingbusiness352011 113922 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagelookfar111 wroteYep same old story hire someone for $98000 when 10 equally qualified people woulddo it for 60k with a 20 year top out at 75 k Then a sweetheart adios gift And the cherry
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 31 of 77
on top Another tax increase for the people God I hate what the democrat machinehave done to this once great state352011 111649 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser ImageSnoopysam wrotesickofpolsnj you must be on ot those employees that Brazelton held accountable forHER actions You are right there is so much more to this story and when the real truthscome out there will be some emplopyeesadministratorsboard members hanging theirheads in shame Talk about wasting taxpayer dollars take a look at some of the lazyincompetent employees that Brazelton had to deal withand their HUGE mistakes thathad to be corrected which cost the taxpayers thousands upon thousands of dollars352011 94250 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagesickofpolsnj wroteYou are exactly correct A teacher would never get a sweatheart deal like this I wonderwhich Board Member it was that was mentioned in that letter Did you read the blog thatthis all came out on it has way more details than this articlehttpdansviewrunnemedewordpresscom352011 92934 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagesickofpolsnj wroteOnly thing is Runnemede never had these issues Somerdale had the same EXACT issueswith Brazelton Administrators arent allowed to comment however talk to the teachersand employees off record they will tell you all about Kelly352011 92726 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagesickofpolsnj wroteThere is so much more to this story I hope the CP will run a follow up 1 Look into therealtionship and hiring surrounding Doug the maintenance supervisor 2 Check intoBrazeltons past employment Somerdale Schools 3 Brazelton is rumored to be hired atthe completion of the settlement in Deptford 4 Look into unethical practices between aBoard Member and Brazelton 5 And what about the other Board member that wasrecently charged with a serious crime352011 92315 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imageicallbullschit wroteOnce again the government tries to pin their mistakes on an individual when they screwup royally What the paper fails to report is the other side Maybe years and years ofmismanagement and patronage were uncovered and it became a hostile environmentwhen people got called on their actions and the same old routine was stopped Maybethe school board realized it would be cheaper to pay one than to pay many for theirmistakes Maybe the school board was willing to pay in order to keep their dirty littlesecrets covered up Maybe the resident should look deeper into the actions of the schoolboard and the rest of the administration Maybe I am wrong but it seems that the board
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 32 of 77
got called on some issues and now they are attacking one individual to cover theirtracks They seem to be acting like the GREAT WIZARD OF OZ Pay no attention to theidiots behind the curtain we are the all powerful and all knowing school board Pull backthe curtain people because there are people behind there that are faking their waythrough and going to wind up costing the district millions Just saying352011 85642 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagecookmom wroteSchool board President Colleen Kurth said it was much easier to go with a separationagreement than pay more legal fees She compared paying Brazelton to paying ateacher out sick while a substitute fills in The job just has to go on Kurth said I amconfused A teacher out SICK is NOT the same as a HOSTILE work enviorment How cana medical condition be compared to a person being accused of a hostile workenviorment A teacher would be REQUIRED to use their sick days~ since this is beingcompared to an illness ~was Brazelton REQUIRED to give up her sickvacation pay orwas that part of the dealWas she also paid for those days Wouldnt we all love to becollecting a salary from two towns As now she is being paid by Runnemde AND acurrent SCHOOL district where she is currently employed THIS is the waste in ourSchool districts352011 83552 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imageneocon wroteShe is part of the Protected Classes All you need to know is that she is better thanyou so just keep moveing along Nothing to see here352011 81912 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report Abuse
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 33 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 34 of 77
New Jersey Libertarian PartyOpen Government Advocacy Project
John Paff Chairman
PO Box 5424
Somerset NJ 08875-5424
Phone 732-873-1251 - Fax 908-325-0129
Email lpsmcpoboxcom
May 7 2011
Hon Colleen Kurth President and members of the
Runnemede Board of Education
505 W Third Ave
Runnemede NJ 08078 (via e-mail to vcarmodyrunnemedeschoolsorg )
Dear President Kurth and Board members
I write both individually and on behalf the New Jersey Libertarian Partys Open
Government Advocacy Project to comment on 1) the manner in which the Board of Education
goes into nonpublic (ie executive or closed) session and 2) the level of detail contained within
the Boardrsquos executive session minutes
Issue 1 Executive Session resolutions
As you are aware the Senator Byron M Baer Open Public Meetings Act requires public
bodies such as the Runnemede Board of Education to publicly pass a resolution before
excluding the public from a meeting The statute that requires the resolution states
NJSA 104-13mdashClosed meetings resolution to conduct
No public body shall exclude the public from any meeting to discuss any
matter described in subsection 7 b (104-12) until the public body shall
first adopt a resolution at a meeting to which the public shall be admitted
a Stating the general nature of the subject to be discussed and
b Stating as precisely as possible the time when and the circumstances
under which the discussion conducted in closed session of the public body
can be disclosed to the public
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 35 of 77
2
By way of a recent records request I received resolutions which purport to authorize
executive sessions intended to be held by the Board of Education on July 28 2010 (2 sessions)
August 20 2010 February 2 1011 February 23 2011 (2 sessions) and March 2 2011 Those
resolutions which are virtually identical to each other state
Executive Session to discuss student matters personnel contractual and
legal matters [time and a statement as to whether action will be
taken]
[identity of maker of motion etc]
Resolved that pursuant to Section 8 of the Public Meetings Act the public
shall be excluded from that portion of the meeting involving the discussion
of personnel legal and contractual matters Further resolved that
discussion of such subject matters discussed in Executive Session can be
disclosed to public upon official action if any at the conclusion of the
executive session or at a public session at some later date
I dont think that this form of resolution satisfies NJSA 104-13 because it gives the
public no real sense of what is being privately discussed1 To paraphrase the highest court of of
another state a body which only announces ldquolegal mattersrdquo or ldquopersonnel negotiationsrdquo for
going into executive session has said nothing It might has well have stated to the audience
ldquoLadies and gentlemen we are going into executive sessionrdquo and stopped there Hinds County
Board of Supervisors v Common Cause of Mississippi 551 So2d 107 114 (MS 1989)
Of course there can be no dispute that the Board of Education often has legitimate
reasons to meet in nonpublic session Among these reasons is the need to prevent the adverse
parties in litigation or contract negotiations from gaining an unfair advantage and to allow
members of the governing body to debate and deliberate personnel matters without public
scrutiny or participation But the need to discuss matters privately should not prevent the
public from being informed as precisely as possible of the topics that are being privately
discussed
For example suppose that Runnemede Board is being sued by a Mr Jones who was
injured after he slipped and fell on what he claims to be negligently maintained school
property Since the lawsuit is already a public record there is no public purpose served by
vaguely describing a private discussion of it as ldquostudent matters personnel contractual and
legal mattersrdquo Rather the resolution should at the very least describe the private discussion as
1 In January 2007 when I most recently litigated this issue Middlesex County Superior Court Judge Alexander P
Waugh issued a written decision in which he agreed with other court decisions that closed session resolutions
should contain as much information as is consistent with full public knowledge without doing any harm to the
public interest Judge Waughs decision and other case documents are on the Web at
httpogtfarchiveorgOGTFMonroeBOEWebreadypdf
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 36 of 77
3
ldquoDiscussion of slip and fall negligence suit Jones v Runnemede Board Docket No CAM-L-
012345-11rdquo This way the public has a very good sense of what the Boardrsquos private discussion is
about while the ability of the Board to develop its lawsuit strategy is not undermined
Using the same example suppose that Jonesrsquo attorney sent the Boardrsquos attorney an offer
to fully settle the lawsuit upon the Boardrsquos payment of $20000 While the Board would
obviously need to discuss how to respond to the offer in private lest Jones or his attorney
would be in the audience witnessing the discussion there is no reason why the public cannot be
informed in the NJSA 104-13 resolution that the Board will meet in private to discuss ldquoa
settlement offer received from the Plaintiff in the slip and fall negligence suit known as Jones v
Runnemede Board Docket No CAM-L-012345-11 in which the Plaintiff offers to settle the suit
in exchange for the Board paying him $20000rdquo While it may initially seem that this would
provide ldquotoo muchrdquo information to the public this concern disappears once it is realized that
the sole purpose of the exception2 that allows litigation matters to be discussed in private is to
keep the adverse party to the litigation in the dark regarding the Boardrsquos position3 Since in this
example the adverse party (ie Jones) already knows that he offered to settle the lawsuit for
$20000 there is no legitimate reason why the public should not also know of the tendered
settlement offer
As another example suppose that a personnel matter such as whether or not a Mrs
Smith a public works employee should be disciplined because of repeatedly arriving late to
work is to be discussed in closed session In such a case the amount of detail set forth in the
NJSA 104-13 resolution should correspond to the amount of detail that the Board and its
attorney predict will be publicly disclosed in the closed meetingrsquos minutes when those minutes
are made public
The standard that the Board is to use when determining how much information about a
personnel matter is to be disclosed in the closed sessionrsquos minutes is set forth in South Jersey
Publishing Company Inc v New Jersey Expressway Authority 124 NJ 478 (1991) That
standard is that a) the public needs information if it is properly fulfill its role of evaluating the
wisdom of governmental action or a decision not to act b) that New Jerseys strong public
policy requires that a public bodyrsquos actions and decisions to not act be disclosed in the bodys
closed meeting minutes along with sufficient facts and information to permit the public to
understand and appraise the reasonableness of the bodys determination and c) to the extent a
cognizable privacy interest may be compromised by the required disclosure the extent of
disclosure may be modified through redactions of the minutes provided the public interest in
disclosure is not subverted
2 NJSA104-12(b)(7) is to prevent adverse parties to litigation and contracts from learning the details of the
public bodyrsquos negotiation tactics and litigation strategy3 See the discussion in Paff v Washington Township Docket No MER-L-2205-07 and Nevin v Asbury Park City
Board 2005 WL 2847974 (App Div November 1 2005) which are on-line at
httpogtfarchiveorgOGTFWashingtonpdf (Nevin begins at page 44 of the PDF file at the link)
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 37 of 77
4
Thus regardless of whether the Board disciplines Ms Smith or chooses to not impose
discipline due to her lateness the outcome should be recorded in the closed meeting minutes
The question of whether that entry in the minutes should be redacted before the minutes are
made public requires a balancing of Ms Smithrsquos interest in keeping the disciplinary matter
private against the publicrsquos interest in effectively monitoring the Board If the Board with
counselrsquos advice determines after balancing these interests that the outcome will be published
unredacted in the closed sessionrsquos minutes (ie if the minutes will disclose to the public eg that
ldquoMs Smith was suspended for three days on account of her habitual latenessrdquo) then the exact
nature of the matter (ie that ldquothe Board will discuss disciplining Ms Smith for excessive
latenessrdquo) should be set forth in the closed meetingrsquos NJSA 104-13 resolution Inversely if the
Board determines that Ms Smithrsquos privacy interest exceeds the publicrsquos right to know then less
information (eg ldquothe Board will discuss disciplining an employee for excessive latenessrdquo)
should be set forth in the closed meetingrsquos NJSA 104-13 resolution
In other words if the officer or employee being discussed doesnt have a privacy interest
sufficient to withstand a citizens request for the executive session minutes why should not the
public know the topic of the executive session prior to it occurring
Irsquove attached as Exhibit pages 1 -3 is a model resolution that I would like the Board to
use in the future
Issue 2 Executive Session minutes
Attached as Exhibit Page 4 as an example are the Boardrsquos July 28 2010 executive session
minutes It is troubling that a meeting that lasted over an hour is being summed up in a single
sentence ldquoMr Phil Stern addressed the Board of Education about personnel issuesrdquo These
minutes are not ldquoreasonably comprehensiblerdquo as required by NJSA 104-14
The purpose of closed meeting minutes is not merely to inform the public of whatoccurred during the private session but also to create a record for the Board membersthemselves A Board member who is newly elected in 2012 should be able by referringsolely to the minutes to figure out what issues the Board addressed during any previouslyheld closed meeting This hypothetical Board member after reading the July 28 2010closed minutes could not possibly figure out which employees or officials Mr Stern wastalking about
Better practice would be to record closed minutes that are much morecomprehensive but to redact that material that must be shielded from public view Forexample the minutes could have said
Mr Stern addressed the Board of Education about the habitualtardiness of 2nd grade teacher Mary Doe and her propensity to eatlibrary paste and scream hysterically during fire drills Herecommended that she be sent for psychiatric evaluation
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 38 of 77
5
Of course if a member of the public requested these hypothetical minutes the Boardmay need to redact them in order to protect privacy interests The point however is thatregardless of whether unredacted closed meeting minutes are ever released to the publicthey should contain sufficient details so that the Board members themselves can monthsor years later know what was discussed
Attached as Exhibit pages 5 ndash 9 is an order recently entered in Schmidt et al v City of
Gloucester City et al Docket No CAM-L-1287-11 As you can see paraA(3) supports my position
that the Boardrsquos minutes are not ldquoreasonably comprehensiblerdquo as required by law
Conclusion
Since some public bodies do not take my requests for Meetings Act compliance seriously
I regret having to inform the Board that I will sue for declaratory and injunctive relief in
accordance with NJSA 104-16 unless I receive assurances from the Boardmdashwithin a few days
after its May 10 2011 meetingmdashthat it will work in good faith to improve the amount of
information in both its closed session resolutions and minutes If the Boardrsquos agenda is already
set for the May 10 2011 meeting please at least acknowledge this letter and let me know the
date of the meeting at which it will be considered
Thank you very much for your attention to this matter I look forward to hearing from
you
Sincerely
John Paff
cc Philip E Stern Esq w enc (via e-mail to psternasgllawcom )
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 39 of 77
RUNNEMEDE BOARD OF EDUCATIONRESOLUTION NO ___________
AUTHORIZING EXECUTIVE SESSION
WHEREAS while the Sen Byron M Baer Open Public Meetings Act (NJSA 104-6 et seq) requires allmeetings of the Runnemede Board of Education to be held in public NJSA 104-12(b) sets forth nine (9)types of matters that may lawfully be discussed in ldquoExecutive Sessionrdquo ie without the public beingpermitted to attend and
WHEREAS the Runnemede Board of Education has determined that _____ (insert number) issues arepermitted by NJSA 104-12(b) to be discussed without the public in attendance shall be discussed duringan Executive Session to be held on _________________________ 20____ at _______ PM and
WHEREAS the nine (9) exceptions to public meetings set forth in NJSA 104-12(b) are listed below andnext to each exception is a box within which the number of issues to be privately discussed that fall withinthat exception shall be written and after each exception is a space where additional information that willdisclose as much information about the discussion as possible without undermining the purpose of theexception shall be written
ldquo(1) Any matter which by express provision of Federal law State statute or rule of courtshall be rendered confidential or excluded from public discussionrdquo The legal citation to theprovision(s) at issue is__________________________ and the nature of the matter described asspecifically as possible without undermining the need for confidentiality is _______________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(2) Any matter in which the release of information would impair a right to receive fundsfrom the federal governmentrdquo The nature of the matter described as specifically as possiblewithout undermining the need for confidentiality is _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(3) Any material the disclosure of which constitutes an unwarranted invasion of individualprivacy such as any records data reports recommendations or other personal material ofany educational training social service medical health custodial child protectionrehabilitation legal defense welfare housing relocation insurance and similar program orinstitution operated by a public body pertaining to any specific individual admitted to orserved by such institution or program including but not limited to information relative tothe individuals personal and family circumstances and any material pertaining toadmission discharge treatment progress or condition of any individual unless theindividual concerned (or in the case of a minor or incompetent his guardian) shall requestin writing that the same be disclosed publiclyrdquo The nature of the matter described asspecifically as possible without undermining the need for confidentiality is______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(4) Any collective bargaining agreement or the terms and conditions of which are proposedfor inclusion in any collective bargaining agreement including the negotiation of terms andconditions with employees or representatives of employees of the public bodyrdquo The collectivebargaining contract(s) discussed are between the Board and ____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Exhibit Page 1Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 40 of 77
ldquo(5) Any matter involving the purchase lease or acquisition of real property with publicfunds the setting of bank rates or investment of public funds where it could adversely affectthe public interest if discussion of such matters were disclosedrdquo The nature of the matterdescribed as specifically as possible without undermining the need for confidentiality is____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(6) Any tactics and techniques utilized in protecting the safety and property of the publicprovided that their disclosure could impair such protection Any investigations of violationsor possible violations of the lawrdquo The nature of the matter described as specifically as possiblewithout undermining the need for confidentiality is ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(7) Any pending or anticipated litigation or contract negotiation in which the public body isor may become a party Any matters falling within the attorney-client privilege to the extentthat confidentiality is required in order for the attorney to exercise his ethicalduties as a lawyerrdquo The parties to and docket numbers of each item of litigation andor theparties to each contract discussed are __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ andnature of the discussion described as specifically as possible without undermining the need forconfidentiality is ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(8) Any matter involving the employment appointment termination of employment termsand conditions of employment evaluation of the performance promotion or disciplining ofany specific prospective public officer or employee or current public officer or employeeemployed or appointed by the public body unless all individual employees or appointees whoserights could be adversely affected request in writing that such matter or matters be discussed ata public meetingrdquo Subject to the balancing of the publicrsquos interest and the employeersquos privacyrights under South Jersey Publishing Co v New Jersey Expressway Authority 124 NJ 478 theemployee(s) and nature of the discussion described as specifically as possible withoutundermining the need for confidentiality are _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(9) Any deliberation of a public body occurring after a public hearing that may result in theimposition of a specific civil penalty upon the responding party or the suspension or loss of alicense or permit belonging to the responding party as a result of an act of omission forwhich the responding party bears responsibilityrdquo The nature of the matter described asspecifically as possible without undermining the need for confidentiality is______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
WHEREAS the length of the Executive Session is estimated to be ________ minutes after which the publicmeeting of the Board shall (circle one) reconvene and immediately adjourn or reconvene and proceed withbusiness
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Runnemede Board of Education will go into ExecutiveSession for only the above stated reasons
Exhibit Page 2Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 41 of 77
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board hereby declares that its discussion of the aforementionedsubject(s) will be made public at a time when the publicrsquos interest in disclosure is greater than any privacy orgovernmental interest being protected from disclosure For each of the above items the estimated date bywhich such disclosure can be made andor the occurrence that needs to take place before disclosure can bemade are listed below (attach separate sheet if necessary)
Subject of Discussion Estimated Date Necessary Occurrence
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Clerk at the present public meeting shall read aloud enough ofthis resolution so that members of the public in attendance can understand as precisely as possible thenature of the matters that will privately discussed
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Clerk on the next business day following this meeting shallfurnish a copy of this resolution to any member of the public who requests one at the fees allowed byNJSA 471A-1 et seq
_________________________________Board President
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS ATRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTIONAPPROVED BY THE RUNNEMEDE BOARD OF EDUCATION AT ITSPUBLIC MEETING HELD ON ______________________20___
_______________________________________Board Secretary
Exhibit Page 3Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 42 of 77
Exhibit Page 4Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 43 of 77
Exhibit Page 5Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 44 of 77
Exhibit Page 6Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 45 of 77
Exhibit Page 7Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 46 of 77
Exhibit Page 8Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 47 of 77
Exhibit Page 9Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 48 of 77
Subject Records RequestFrom John Paff ltpaffpoboxcomgtDate Sat 07 May 2011 161444 -0400To vcarmodyrunnemedeschoolsorgCC psternasgllawcom
Ms Carmody
Please accept this e-mail as my request for government records inaccordance with the Open Public Records Act (OPRA) and the commonlaw right of access Please respond and send all responsivedocuments to me via e-mail at paffpoboxcom If e-mail is notpossible please fax responses and responsive records to me at908-325-0129 Also I would appreciate it if you wouldacknowledge your receipt of this e-mail
Background
In response to a records request I recently received redactedexecutive session minutes for the following dates July 28 2010(first session) August 26 2010 February 2 2011 February 232011 (two sessions) and March 2 2011 Although Mr Stern providedme with a sheet entitled Documents Exempt From OPRA request thatpurports to explain these redactions I am still unclear as to whythe matter was redacted and whether it was lawfully redacted
First I dont understand references such as NJSA 471A-11(12)(c) The version of OPRA that I have (plus every other oneIve seen) does not have internal numbers within NJSA471A-11 Am I correct that NJSA 471A-11(12)(c) isintended to refer to the exemption for records in connection withcollective negotiations including documents and statements ofstrategy or negotiating position and that NJSA 471A-11(7)is intended to refer to any record within the attorney-clientprivilege This paragraph shall not be construed as exempting fromaccess attorney or consultant bills or invoices except that suchbills or invoices may be redacted to remove any informationprotected by the attorney-client privilege Please advise
Second even if I correctly corresponded the claimed exemptions tothe OPRA statute I have no way of knowing whether the mattersredacted are actually exempt from access When a custodiansuppresses any portion of any requested record NJSA471A-5(g) requires him or her to state the ldquospecific basisrdquo foreach suppressed element Beyond stating the ldquospecific basisrdquo foreach suppressed element he or she is required to ldquoproduce
Records Request
1 of 2 622011 810 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 49 of 77
specific reliable evidence sufficient to meet a statutorilyrecognized basis for confidentialityrdquo Courier News v HunterdonCounty Prosecutorrsquos Office 358 NJ Super 373 382-83 (App Div2003) Further he or she must explain each suppression in amanner that ldquowill enable other parties to assess the applicabilityof the privilege or protectionrdquo Paff v New Jersey Department ofLabor Board of Review 379 NJ Super 346 354-55 (2005)(quoting R 410-2(e))
Records requested
Runnemede Board of Education minutes for the following dates July28 2010 (728 pm session only) August 26 2010 February 22011 February 23 2011 (both sessions) and March 2 2011 Iwould like these minutes redacted as narrowly as possible if atall For each redaction I request a written explanation thatmeets the requirements of the case law cited above
cc Phil Stern
Records Request
2 of 2 622011 810 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 50 of 77
Subject Re Fwd Runnemede Board of Education Open PublicMeetings ActFrom John Paff ltpaffpoboxcomgtDate Mon 09 May 2011 134726 -0400To Nancy Ward ltnwardrunnemedeschoolsorggt
Thank you
On 592011 116 PM Nancy Ward wrote
Mr Paff
The Board has named me Custodian of Records Please direct allfuturecommunication to me The May 10 2011 meeting is theRe-organization ofthe Runnemede Board of Education The agenda is set and is verycomprehensive I intend to defer the letter and any discussionregardingits content to the next regular meeting the date of which willbe setat the re-organization tomorrow night In keeping with thedistrictsmeeting pattern that will be May 25 2011
Nancy BWard EdD
Superintendent of Schools
-----Original Message-----From John PaffSent 572011 42300 PMTo nwardrunnemedeschoolsorgCc vcarmodyrunnemedeschoolsorg psternasgllawcomSubject Fwd Runnemede Board of Education Open Public MeetingsAct
Here is another e-mail in case my original one should have beendirected to Ms Ward and not Ms Carmody
JP
-------- Original Message --------Subject Runnemede Board of Education Open Public Meetings ActDate Sat 07 May 2011 152319 -0400From John Paff
Re Fwd Runnemede Board of Education Open Public Meetings Act
1 of 2 622011 811 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 51 of 77
Reply-To paffpoboxcomTo vcarmodyrunnemedeschoolsorg psternasgllawcom
Ms Carmody and Mr Stern
Attached is a letter that I would like the Board to consider atits May10 2011 meeting Would you please a) acknowledge receipt of theletterand b) distribute it to all the Board members
Note that the last paragraph of the letter indicates that I willfilesuit against the Board if the issues in the letter arentaddressedSo if the Boards agenda for the May 10th meeting is so tightthat myletter cannot be accommodated please advise me of such andprovide ameeting date where my letter will be addressed so that I knowthat I amnot being ignored
Thank you
John Paff ChairmanNew Jersey Libertarian PartysOpen Government Advocacy Project
Re Fwd Runnemede Board of Education Open Public Meetings Act
2 of 2 622011 811 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 52 of 77
Subject OPRA RequestFrom Philip Stern ltpsternasgllawcomgtDate Fri 20 May 2011 161015 -0500To paffpoboxcom ltpaffpoboxcomgtCC Nancy Ward ltnwardrunnemedeschoolsorggt
Mr Paff please find attached to this email a response to your request forbusiness records Please note that in providing you with the attachedrecords the Runnemede Borough Board of Education waives no rightsregarding the attorney-client privilege Do not hesitate to call me if youhave any questions Phil Stern
Philip E SternAdams Stern Gutierrez amp Lattiboudere LLCThe Legal Center1037 Raymond Blvd Suite 710Newark New Jersey 07102(973) 735-2742 (office telephone)(201) 914-2415 (cellular telephone)(973) 735-2743 (office telefax)
May 20 Paff responsepdf
Content-DescriptionMay 20 Paffresponsepdf
Content-Type applicationpdf
Content-Encoding base64
OPRA Request
1 of 1 622011 815 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 53 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 54 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 55 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 56 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 57 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 58 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 59 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 60 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 61 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 62 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 63 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 64 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 65 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 66 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 67 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 68 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 69 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 70 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 71 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 72 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 73 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 74 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 75 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 76 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 77 of 77
- Civil Complaint
- Exhibits
-
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 14 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 15 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 16 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 17 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 18 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 19 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 20 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 21 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 22 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 23 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 24 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 25 of 77
Idled officials payout riles Runnemede
By BARBARA S ROTHSCHILD bull Courier-Post Staff bull March 5 2011
RUNNEMEDE mdash Although the school district is paying Business Administrator Kelly PetersBrazelton her full salary to stay home while paying for an interim employee RunnemedeSuperintendent Nancy Ward said it could have cost more not to have a separationagreement
New Jersey is a very litigious state she said In order to avoid litigation which neveris a good thing a separation agreement gives you a certain outcome
Brazelton a Deptford resident and the former business administrator for the SomerdalePublic School District began working for Runnemede schools in August 2008 Her mostrecent contract for July 1 2010 through June 30 is for $99465 plus benefits
But the relationship soured and the district would not comment on specifics citingconfidentiality
A letter from staff members written to Ward and the school board in July 2010 gaveexamples of a hostile work environment that they said was created by the businessadministrator
Brazelton could not be reached Her attorney Joseph Betley of Mount Laurel said hisclient signed the separation agreement in good faith
There was a disagreement between the board and Kelly he said It was resolved andboth sides decided to move on
She disputes any and all allegations regarding a hostile work environment It wassimply Kelly doing her job
The separation agreement and release dated Oct 20 stipulates Brazelton be placed ona paid leave of absence from Sept 23 to April 15 at which time she would irrevocablyresign
School board President Colleen Kurth said it was much easier to go with a separationagreement than pay more legal fees
She compared paying Brazelton to paying a teacher out sick while a substitute fills in
The job just has to go on Kurth said
Interim Business Administrator Valerie Carmody who retired from the same post in EastGreenwich last year was hired Dec 1 at $60 per hour 24 hours maximum per weekHer contract ends June 30
New Jersey School Boards Association spokesman Mike Yaple said such separationagreements are infrequent
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 26 of 77
No school board willingly enters into an agreement like this he insisted But eventhough its not a popular decision its the lesser of two evils
Residents unhappy about the districts handling of the situation include Dan Conard ajournalism student at Rowan University Conard writes a blog where he discusses schooldistrict and municipal matters To comment on this topic he filed Open Public RecordsAct (OPRA) document requests
I just wanted to get it out there so people know what is going on Conard said
Ward said she has no quarrel with the student but believes Brazeltons case is anunusual circumstance
It (the separation agreement) was the most responsible thing the district could havedone she insisted Was it a bitter pill to swallow It took the board (a while) beforethey felt it was something they could do but it makes the most sense
Ward said the part-time arrangement with Carmody is working out well and that as thedistrict improves efficiency it is unlikely another full-time business administrator will behired particularly when Executive County Superintendent Peggy Nicolosi has advisedagainst it
Among the options being considered are another part-time business administrator or ashared-service agreement with another district
Ward said she would have preferred the money being expended in this case be spent oneducational programs and teachers particularly this year
Although voters passed Runnemedes 2010-11 budget while many others were defeatedlast April the district of 853 students in K-8 lost six staffers and streamlined its gifted-and-talented program after state aid was cut
Ward also defended the decision to keep a maintenance techniciansupervisor positioncreated in 2008 noting it has saved at least $145000 each year
Mark Speck of Voorhees earns $50000 in the post Through June 2010 it was filled byDoug McGarry a former building and grounds supervisor in the Somerdale district Heearned $60000 in Runnemede but had more experience than Speck Ward said
Before Brazelton arrived in Runnemede the business administrator also served asmaintenance supervisor Ward said that actually cost the district more because it had topay outside maintenance workers sometimes for faulty work
Many things had been done to the facilities that were not to the boards satisfactionshe said That first year with our own maintenance person we saved $145000 becausewe hired a person who fixed things
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 27 of 77
Speck works with vendors going over bids and quotes and also does minor repairs thatno longer have to be paid for piecemeal Ward said the position is staying in the 2011-2012 budget adopted preliminarily on Wednesday
Hes the guy whos here at 4 am making sure weve got snow plows when we needthem Ward said Hes dirty and sweaty -- and hes excellent
Ward said the budget sent to the county includes a $78 annual tax increase for theowner of a home assessed at the $97800 borough average but does not cut staff orprograms
Kurth hopes to tweak the budget and lower the tax hike before it is introduced to thepublic on March 23 But she agreed the maintenance supervisor will stay
That was an investment on the part of the school district Kurth said
Reach Barbara S Rothschild at (856) 486-2416 or barothschildcamdengannettcom
--Comments
User Imageamonkeycoulddoit wroteThe mayor cant hear you because she doesnt even know how to turn on a computerNot that it was a requirement that the mayor should know how to use one I think theonly requirement is that they have a pulse And she does but barely372011 12406 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imageamonkeycoulddoit wroteTo sickofpolsnj it does seem that snoopysam has some inside information And whenyou say hows that mayors race looking I hope that you dont mean that someone fromthe disfunctional school board is going to run for mayor or council or some other electedposition considering the mess that they made on the school board372011 11832 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imageamonkeycoulddoit wroteIf the school board president had listened to staff when the hostil work enviroment issuestarted then she might not be in this pickle She should have spent the money on thelegal fees because if everything is true about the hostile enviroment then they wouldhave won the lawsuit hands down and not had to pay out anything and gotten their legalfees back Another example of elected officials not capable of doing the job they are inLets hope that some people come out of the woodwork to run for school board peoplewho care about the kids and the taxpayers372011 11309 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imageamonkeycoulddoit wrote
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 28 of 77
The school boad is not as inept as the mayor and council You dont have to be a collegegraduate or or even be able to read or write to get an elected position in runnemedeThe 2 new council members got elected because the are involved in the union andeveryone who supports the union came out to vote And the new mayor must have a lotof friends But now after the few months they have been in office it is clear to see thatthey are not able to handle the job Mayor14 is right that the people of Runnemedevoted because they thought they would get something in return for their vote but itlooks like they were wrong In the upcoming elections for school board and council votefor the person who will do the best job whether you like them or not Dont just vote forsomeone because you are told to372011 10214 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagethemayor14 wrotei am so glad this article was written and it clearly points out how inept the runnemedeboard of education actually is the board of education is not elected based on businessand education talent the elections are nothing more than a popularity contest i dontknow how other towns operate but runnemede boro is a total joke when it come toelections be it school board or general elections i wish everyone would get their headsout of their A$$ and truly investigate the school board canidates that are running forelection VOTE WITH YOUR HEAD NOT WITH YOUR HEART362011 91350 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagesavetheschools wroteSeveral people are running for the board for four open seats I signed a petition todayfor a new woman running Members are not paid If you live in Runnemede shopstewardyou have until Tuesday to get a petition submitted I asked and found out there is only 5people on average at the BOE meetings every month in Runnemede I hope more peoplestart to go I plan on it myself And we all need to go every month not just when weread negative press about our schools That is the only way we would all stay informedand not rely on the young man submitting OPRA requests Our town has always beenabout the kids and it needs to get back that way362011 80936 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser ImageShopsteward wroteWhy did it take one young man sending in OPRA requests to bring all this to lightWhy are you relying upon him to get to the bottom of it You say The other members(except for the one who was just arrested and resigned) are good people and didnothing wrong to the district and that might be true except for the fact that theyallowed that incredible salary and benefits to be given out and even though all kinds ofrumors were flying around it took an outsider with OPRA requests to bring this ghastlypimple to a head Sounds more like none of them are doing their jobs and should be outof office and off the payroll They should all just resign They arent doing the job thatwas assigned to them362011 32559 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Image
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 29 of 77
Shopsteward wroteA crime was committed here It began with a violation of the Publics trust by the peoplewho allowed this contract to be signed in the first place What a jokeHow many moreof these jobs are hidden in the budgets of our Schools There needs to be a thouroughcleaning of all thses tyeps of employees everywhere At the State County Municipaland Scool board level and the appointed Authorities too Everyone screams about theUnions but whenever you hear of some great big abuse it turns out the person wasnteven in the UnionClean up this mess first Mr Christie before yougo after the little guys It will save us all a lot more money362011 101606 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser ImageShopsteward wroteI still dont get itHow is a part time24 hr a week job worth so much This is aprime example of the waste that is giving the public workers a bad nameThe onlyproblem is it isnt some Union personIts management and its the same all over This isjust the tip of the iceberg they scream about the Unions but the real waste is in jobs likethis oneNo way this job or the thousands of others like it should be paid so well99465 PLUS BENEFITS incrediblethere should be a lawandthe person gets a pension based on that bloated salarytooThere should be other people losing their jobs not for theseperation aggreement but for letting this evenhappen352011 101125 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagethesplits wroteI guess this is Runnemedes version of a shared service352011 73450 PM
User Imagethesplits wroteLooks like its the same old Runnemede and I thought we voted for change Mayor352011 73202 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagesavetheschools wroteFrom what I understand and I live in town the board went into this separationagreement because the BA would have had a potential lawsuit and it would have costthe school district and tax payers a ton of money Much more than they are spendingnow And yes it is one school board member who was apparently corrupt Just one Theyoung man who was mentioned in the article has been OPRA requesting items and willget to the bottom of this situation with the former BA and the certain board memberBut that is just one person The other members (except for the one who was justarrested and resigned) are good people and did nothing wrong to the district Thisformer BA and her friend who was hired as the maint supervisor have been a hot topicfor a few years Ask the employees they were awful and needed to go It is awful thatthis money was not spent on our children It was a trainwreck from the beginning and ifI recall correctly when the hiring took place only one of the members voted no and that
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 30 of 77
was the local high school teacher metioned in another post Runnemede schools arefantastic and maybe the new people running for election will get some answers andmake some changes And maybe the BOE member who was mentioned by employees asbeing the reason why there could be a possible lawsuit should just resign I understandadmin make good money but they also need to be accountable for their actions and ifthe BA made a hostile environment and was supported by one BOE member both shouldbe gonenot just the BA352011 33207 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagecookmom wroteWhere is Gov Christies veto power352011 30321 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagecookmom wroteThis all happened with a local police officer and a FOP member and local high schoolteacher and member of the NJEA on the board The Runnemede Board is looking alotlike the DRPA and was this group picked by the new Mayor352011 30042 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagesickofpolsnj wroteThe real truth is the Board of Education member and Brazelton and the unethicalsituation that THEY created The questionable contracts and underhanded deals There isa certain Board Member that hopes that this ends here well it doesnt There is not aTeacher or employee in Runnemede Schools that would defend Brazelton same goes forSomerdale And many are willing to bring out MANY of the things that Brazelton did todestroy the district The ENTIRE Runnemede School Community is thrilled that Brazeltonis gone Snoopysam is clearly one of two people Kelly or the Board Member shouldwe name names Hows that Mayors race looking352011 114254 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser ImageShopsteward wrote$99465 plus benefits How much does she pay for her share of those benefitsor are they free to her Her replacement only works 24 hours a week are we being toldthat she got that much money for a part time job What is the matter with theidiots that hired her to begin withNo one should get that kind of money for a part timeThat is an awful lot of money for that kind of job We should not be surprised at all Thiskind of thing is everywhere in Camden CountyIts the NORMAL way of doingbusiness352011 113922 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagelookfar111 wroteYep same old story hire someone for $98000 when 10 equally qualified people woulddo it for 60k with a 20 year top out at 75 k Then a sweetheart adios gift And the cherry
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 31 of 77
on top Another tax increase for the people God I hate what the democrat machinehave done to this once great state352011 111649 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser ImageSnoopysam wrotesickofpolsnj you must be on ot those employees that Brazelton held accountable forHER actions You are right there is so much more to this story and when the real truthscome out there will be some emplopyeesadministratorsboard members hanging theirheads in shame Talk about wasting taxpayer dollars take a look at some of the lazyincompetent employees that Brazelton had to deal withand their HUGE mistakes thathad to be corrected which cost the taxpayers thousands upon thousands of dollars352011 94250 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagesickofpolsnj wroteYou are exactly correct A teacher would never get a sweatheart deal like this I wonderwhich Board Member it was that was mentioned in that letter Did you read the blog thatthis all came out on it has way more details than this articlehttpdansviewrunnemedewordpresscom352011 92934 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagesickofpolsnj wroteOnly thing is Runnemede never had these issues Somerdale had the same EXACT issueswith Brazelton Administrators arent allowed to comment however talk to the teachersand employees off record they will tell you all about Kelly352011 92726 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagesickofpolsnj wroteThere is so much more to this story I hope the CP will run a follow up 1 Look into therealtionship and hiring surrounding Doug the maintenance supervisor 2 Check intoBrazeltons past employment Somerdale Schools 3 Brazelton is rumored to be hired atthe completion of the settlement in Deptford 4 Look into unethical practices between aBoard Member and Brazelton 5 And what about the other Board member that wasrecently charged with a serious crime352011 92315 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imageicallbullschit wroteOnce again the government tries to pin their mistakes on an individual when they screwup royally What the paper fails to report is the other side Maybe years and years ofmismanagement and patronage were uncovered and it became a hostile environmentwhen people got called on their actions and the same old routine was stopped Maybethe school board realized it would be cheaper to pay one than to pay many for theirmistakes Maybe the school board was willing to pay in order to keep their dirty littlesecrets covered up Maybe the resident should look deeper into the actions of the schoolboard and the rest of the administration Maybe I am wrong but it seems that the board
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 32 of 77
got called on some issues and now they are attacking one individual to cover theirtracks They seem to be acting like the GREAT WIZARD OF OZ Pay no attention to theidiots behind the curtain we are the all powerful and all knowing school board Pull backthe curtain people because there are people behind there that are faking their waythrough and going to wind up costing the district millions Just saying352011 85642 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagecookmom wroteSchool board President Colleen Kurth said it was much easier to go with a separationagreement than pay more legal fees She compared paying Brazelton to paying ateacher out sick while a substitute fills in The job just has to go on Kurth said I amconfused A teacher out SICK is NOT the same as a HOSTILE work enviorment How cana medical condition be compared to a person being accused of a hostile workenviorment A teacher would be REQUIRED to use their sick days~ since this is beingcompared to an illness ~was Brazelton REQUIRED to give up her sickvacation pay orwas that part of the dealWas she also paid for those days Wouldnt we all love to becollecting a salary from two towns As now she is being paid by Runnemde AND acurrent SCHOOL district where she is currently employed THIS is the waste in ourSchool districts352011 83552 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imageneocon wroteShe is part of the Protected Classes All you need to know is that she is better thanyou so just keep moveing along Nothing to see here352011 81912 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report Abuse
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 33 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 34 of 77
New Jersey Libertarian PartyOpen Government Advocacy Project
John Paff Chairman
PO Box 5424
Somerset NJ 08875-5424
Phone 732-873-1251 - Fax 908-325-0129
Email lpsmcpoboxcom
May 7 2011
Hon Colleen Kurth President and members of the
Runnemede Board of Education
505 W Third Ave
Runnemede NJ 08078 (via e-mail to vcarmodyrunnemedeschoolsorg )
Dear President Kurth and Board members
I write both individually and on behalf the New Jersey Libertarian Partys Open
Government Advocacy Project to comment on 1) the manner in which the Board of Education
goes into nonpublic (ie executive or closed) session and 2) the level of detail contained within
the Boardrsquos executive session minutes
Issue 1 Executive Session resolutions
As you are aware the Senator Byron M Baer Open Public Meetings Act requires public
bodies such as the Runnemede Board of Education to publicly pass a resolution before
excluding the public from a meeting The statute that requires the resolution states
NJSA 104-13mdashClosed meetings resolution to conduct
No public body shall exclude the public from any meeting to discuss any
matter described in subsection 7 b (104-12) until the public body shall
first adopt a resolution at a meeting to which the public shall be admitted
a Stating the general nature of the subject to be discussed and
b Stating as precisely as possible the time when and the circumstances
under which the discussion conducted in closed session of the public body
can be disclosed to the public
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 35 of 77
2
By way of a recent records request I received resolutions which purport to authorize
executive sessions intended to be held by the Board of Education on July 28 2010 (2 sessions)
August 20 2010 February 2 1011 February 23 2011 (2 sessions) and March 2 2011 Those
resolutions which are virtually identical to each other state
Executive Session to discuss student matters personnel contractual and
legal matters [time and a statement as to whether action will be
taken]
[identity of maker of motion etc]
Resolved that pursuant to Section 8 of the Public Meetings Act the public
shall be excluded from that portion of the meeting involving the discussion
of personnel legal and contractual matters Further resolved that
discussion of such subject matters discussed in Executive Session can be
disclosed to public upon official action if any at the conclusion of the
executive session or at a public session at some later date
I dont think that this form of resolution satisfies NJSA 104-13 because it gives the
public no real sense of what is being privately discussed1 To paraphrase the highest court of of
another state a body which only announces ldquolegal mattersrdquo or ldquopersonnel negotiationsrdquo for
going into executive session has said nothing It might has well have stated to the audience
ldquoLadies and gentlemen we are going into executive sessionrdquo and stopped there Hinds County
Board of Supervisors v Common Cause of Mississippi 551 So2d 107 114 (MS 1989)
Of course there can be no dispute that the Board of Education often has legitimate
reasons to meet in nonpublic session Among these reasons is the need to prevent the adverse
parties in litigation or contract negotiations from gaining an unfair advantage and to allow
members of the governing body to debate and deliberate personnel matters without public
scrutiny or participation But the need to discuss matters privately should not prevent the
public from being informed as precisely as possible of the topics that are being privately
discussed
For example suppose that Runnemede Board is being sued by a Mr Jones who was
injured after he slipped and fell on what he claims to be negligently maintained school
property Since the lawsuit is already a public record there is no public purpose served by
vaguely describing a private discussion of it as ldquostudent matters personnel contractual and
legal mattersrdquo Rather the resolution should at the very least describe the private discussion as
1 In January 2007 when I most recently litigated this issue Middlesex County Superior Court Judge Alexander P
Waugh issued a written decision in which he agreed with other court decisions that closed session resolutions
should contain as much information as is consistent with full public knowledge without doing any harm to the
public interest Judge Waughs decision and other case documents are on the Web at
httpogtfarchiveorgOGTFMonroeBOEWebreadypdf
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 36 of 77
3
ldquoDiscussion of slip and fall negligence suit Jones v Runnemede Board Docket No CAM-L-
012345-11rdquo This way the public has a very good sense of what the Boardrsquos private discussion is
about while the ability of the Board to develop its lawsuit strategy is not undermined
Using the same example suppose that Jonesrsquo attorney sent the Boardrsquos attorney an offer
to fully settle the lawsuit upon the Boardrsquos payment of $20000 While the Board would
obviously need to discuss how to respond to the offer in private lest Jones or his attorney
would be in the audience witnessing the discussion there is no reason why the public cannot be
informed in the NJSA 104-13 resolution that the Board will meet in private to discuss ldquoa
settlement offer received from the Plaintiff in the slip and fall negligence suit known as Jones v
Runnemede Board Docket No CAM-L-012345-11 in which the Plaintiff offers to settle the suit
in exchange for the Board paying him $20000rdquo While it may initially seem that this would
provide ldquotoo muchrdquo information to the public this concern disappears once it is realized that
the sole purpose of the exception2 that allows litigation matters to be discussed in private is to
keep the adverse party to the litigation in the dark regarding the Boardrsquos position3 Since in this
example the adverse party (ie Jones) already knows that he offered to settle the lawsuit for
$20000 there is no legitimate reason why the public should not also know of the tendered
settlement offer
As another example suppose that a personnel matter such as whether or not a Mrs
Smith a public works employee should be disciplined because of repeatedly arriving late to
work is to be discussed in closed session In such a case the amount of detail set forth in the
NJSA 104-13 resolution should correspond to the amount of detail that the Board and its
attorney predict will be publicly disclosed in the closed meetingrsquos minutes when those minutes
are made public
The standard that the Board is to use when determining how much information about a
personnel matter is to be disclosed in the closed sessionrsquos minutes is set forth in South Jersey
Publishing Company Inc v New Jersey Expressway Authority 124 NJ 478 (1991) That
standard is that a) the public needs information if it is properly fulfill its role of evaluating the
wisdom of governmental action or a decision not to act b) that New Jerseys strong public
policy requires that a public bodyrsquos actions and decisions to not act be disclosed in the bodys
closed meeting minutes along with sufficient facts and information to permit the public to
understand and appraise the reasonableness of the bodys determination and c) to the extent a
cognizable privacy interest may be compromised by the required disclosure the extent of
disclosure may be modified through redactions of the minutes provided the public interest in
disclosure is not subverted
2 NJSA104-12(b)(7) is to prevent adverse parties to litigation and contracts from learning the details of the
public bodyrsquos negotiation tactics and litigation strategy3 See the discussion in Paff v Washington Township Docket No MER-L-2205-07 and Nevin v Asbury Park City
Board 2005 WL 2847974 (App Div November 1 2005) which are on-line at
httpogtfarchiveorgOGTFWashingtonpdf (Nevin begins at page 44 of the PDF file at the link)
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 37 of 77
4
Thus regardless of whether the Board disciplines Ms Smith or chooses to not impose
discipline due to her lateness the outcome should be recorded in the closed meeting minutes
The question of whether that entry in the minutes should be redacted before the minutes are
made public requires a balancing of Ms Smithrsquos interest in keeping the disciplinary matter
private against the publicrsquos interest in effectively monitoring the Board If the Board with
counselrsquos advice determines after balancing these interests that the outcome will be published
unredacted in the closed sessionrsquos minutes (ie if the minutes will disclose to the public eg that
ldquoMs Smith was suspended for three days on account of her habitual latenessrdquo) then the exact
nature of the matter (ie that ldquothe Board will discuss disciplining Ms Smith for excessive
latenessrdquo) should be set forth in the closed meetingrsquos NJSA 104-13 resolution Inversely if the
Board determines that Ms Smithrsquos privacy interest exceeds the publicrsquos right to know then less
information (eg ldquothe Board will discuss disciplining an employee for excessive latenessrdquo)
should be set forth in the closed meetingrsquos NJSA 104-13 resolution
In other words if the officer or employee being discussed doesnt have a privacy interest
sufficient to withstand a citizens request for the executive session minutes why should not the
public know the topic of the executive session prior to it occurring
Irsquove attached as Exhibit pages 1 -3 is a model resolution that I would like the Board to
use in the future
Issue 2 Executive Session minutes
Attached as Exhibit Page 4 as an example are the Boardrsquos July 28 2010 executive session
minutes It is troubling that a meeting that lasted over an hour is being summed up in a single
sentence ldquoMr Phil Stern addressed the Board of Education about personnel issuesrdquo These
minutes are not ldquoreasonably comprehensiblerdquo as required by NJSA 104-14
The purpose of closed meeting minutes is not merely to inform the public of whatoccurred during the private session but also to create a record for the Board membersthemselves A Board member who is newly elected in 2012 should be able by referringsolely to the minutes to figure out what issues the Board addressed during any previouslyheld closed meeting This hypothetical Board member after reading the July 28 2010closed minutes could not possibly figure out which employees or officials Mr Stern wastalking about
Better practice would be to record closed minutes that are much morecomprehensive but to redact that material that must be shielded from public view Forexample the minutes could have said
Mr Stern addressed the Board of Education about the habitualtardiness of 2nd grade teacher Mary Doe and her propensity to eatlibrary paste and scream hysterically during fire drills Herecommended that she be sent for psychiatric evaluation
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 38 of 77
5
Of course if a member of the public requested these hypothetical minutes the Boardmay need to redact them in order to protect privacy interests The point however is thatregardless of whether unredacted closed meeting minutes are ever released to the publicthey should contain sufficient details so that the Board members themselves can monthsor years later know what was discussed
Attached as Exhibit pages 5 ndash 9 is an order recently entered in Schmidt et al v City of
Gloucester City et al Docket No CAM-L-1287-11 As you can see paraA(3) supports my position
that the Boardrsquos minutes are not ldquoreasonably comprehensiblerdquo as required by law
Conclusion
Since some public bodies do not take my requests for Meetings Act compliance seriously
I regret having to inform the Board that I will sue for declaratory and injunctive relief in
accordance with NJSA 104-16 unless I receive assurances from the Boardmdashwithin a few days
after its May 10 2011 meetingmdashthat it will work in good faith to improve the amount of
information in both its closed session resolutions and minutes If the Boardrsquos agenda is already
set for the May 10 2011 meeting please at least acknowledge this letter and let me know the
date of the meeting at which it will be considered
Thank you very much for your attention to this matter I look forward to hearing from
you
Sincerely
John Paff
cc Philip E Stern Esq w enc (via e-mail to psternasgllawcom )
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 39 of 77
RUNNEMEDE BOARD OF EDUCATIONRESOLUTION NO ___________
AUTHORIZING EXECUTIVE SESSION
WHEREAS while the Sen Byron M Baer Open Public Meetings Act (NJSA 104-6 et seq) requires allmeetings of the Runnemede Board of Education to be held in public NJSA 104-12(b) sets forth nine (9)types of matters that may lawfully be discussed in ldquoExecutive Sessionrdquo ie without the public beingpermitted to attend and
WHEREAS the Runnemede Board of Education has determined that _____ (insert number) issues arepermitted by NJSA 104-12(b) to be discussed without the public in attendance shall be discussed duringan Executive Session to be held on _________________________ 20____ at _______ PM and
WHEREAS the nine (9) exceptions to public meetings set forth in NJSA 104-12(b) are listed below andnext to each exception is a box within which the number of issues to be privately discussed that fall withinthat exception shall be written and after each exception is a space where additional information that willdisclose as much information about the discussion as possible without undermining the purpose of theexception shall be written
ldquo(1) Any matter which by express provision of Federal law State statute or rule of courtshall be rendered confidential or excluded from public discussionrdquo The legal citation to theprovision(s) at issue is__________________________ and the nature of the matter described asspecifically as possible without undermining the need for confidentiality is _______________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(2) Any matter in which the release of information would impair a right to receive fundsfrom the federal governmentrdquo The nature of the matter described as specifically as possiblewithout undermining the need for confidentiality is _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(3) Any material the disclosure of which constitutes an unwarranted invasion of individualprivacy such as any records data reports recommendations or other personal material ofany educational training social service medical health custodial child protectionrehabilitation legal defense welfare housing relocation insurance and similar program orinstitution operated by a public body pertaining to any specific individual admitted to orserved by such institution or program including but not limited to information relative tothe individuals personal and family circumstances and any material pertaining toadmission discharge treatment progress or condition of any individual unless theindividual concerned (or in the case of a minor or incompetent his guardian) shall requestin writing that the same be disclosed publiclyrdquo The nature of the matter described asspecifically as possible without undermining the need for confidentiality is______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(4) Any collective bargaining agreement or the terms and conditions of which are proposedfor inclusion in any collective bargaining agreement including the negotiation of terms andconditions with employees or representatives of employees of the public bodyrdquo The collectivebargaining contract(s) discussed are between the Board and ____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Exhibit Page 1Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 40 of 77
ldquo(5) Any matter involving the purchase lease or acquisition of real property with publicfunds the setting of bank rates or investment of public funds where it could adversely affectthe public interest if discussion of such matters were disclosedrdquo The nature of the matterdescribed as specifically as possible without undermining the need for confidentiality is____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(6) Any tactics and techniques utilized in protecting the safety and property of the publicprovided that their disclosure could impair such protection Any investigations of violationsor possible violations of the lawrdquo The nature of the matter described as specifically as possiblewithout undermining the need for confidentiality is ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(7) Any pending or anticipated litigation or contract negotiation in which the public body isor may become a party Any matters falling within the attorney-client privilege to the extentthat confidentiality is required in order for the attorney to exercise his ethicalduties as a lawyerrdquo The parties to and docket numbers of each item of litigation andor theparties to each contract discussed are __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ andnature of the discussion described as specifically as possible without undermining the need forconfidentiality is ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(8) Any matter involving the employment appointment termination of employment termsand conditions of employment evaluation of the performance promotion or disciplining ofany specific prospective public officer or employee or current public officer or employeeemployed or appointed by the public body unless all individual employees or appointees whoserights could be adversely affected request in writing that such matter or matters be discussed ata public meetingrdquo Subject to the balancing of the publicrsquos interest and the employeersquos privacyrights under South Jersey Publishing Co v New Jersey Expressway Authority 124 NJ 478 theemployee(s) and nature of the discussion described as specifically as possible withoutundermining the need for confidentiality are _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(9) Any deliberation of a public body occurring after a public hearing that may result in theimposition of a specific civil penalty upon the responding party or the suspension or loss of alicense or permit belonging to the responding party as a result of an act of omission forwhich the responding party bears responsibilityrdquo The nature of the matter described asspecifically as possible without undermining the need for confidentiality is______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
WHEREAS the length of the Executive Session is estimated to be ________ minutes after which the publicmeeting of the Board shall (circle one) reconvene and immediately adjourn or reconvene and proceed withbusiness
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Runnemede Board of Education will go into ExecutiveSession for only the above stated reasons
Exhibit Page 2Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 41 of 77
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board hereby declares that its discussion of the aforementionedsubject(s) will be made public at a time when the publicrsquos interest in disclosure is greater than any privacy orgovernmental interest being protected from disclosure For each of the above items the estimated date bywhich such disclosure can be made andor the occurrence that needs to take place before disclosure can bemade are listed below (attach separate sheet if necessary)
Subject of Discussion Estimated Date Necessary Occurrence
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Clerk at the present public meeting shall read aloud enough ofthis resolution so that members of the public in attendance can understand as precisely as possible thenature of the matters that will privately discussed
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Clerk on the next business day following this meeting shallfurnish a copy of this resolution to any member of the public who requests one at the fees allowed byNJSA 471A-1 et seq
_________________________________Board President
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS ATRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTIONAPPROVED BY THE RUNNEMEDE BOARD OF EDUCATION AT ITSPUBLIC MEETING HELD ON ______________________20___
_______________________________________Board Secretary
Exhibit Page 3Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 42 of 77
Exhibit Page 4Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 43 of 77
Exhibit Page 5Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 44 of 77
Exhibit Page 6Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 45 of 77
Exhibit Page 7Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 46 of 77
Exhibit Page 8Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 47 of 77
Exhibit Page 9Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 48 of 77
Subject Records RequestFrom John Paff ltpaffpoboxcomgtDate Sat 07 May 2011 161444 -0400To vcarmodyrunnemedeschoolsorgCC psternasgllawcom
Ms Carmody
Please accept this e-mail as my request for government records inaccordance with the Open Public Records Act (OPRA) and the commonlaw right of access Please respond and send all responsivedocuments to me via e-mail at paffpoboxcom If e-mail is notpossible please fax responses and responsive records to me at908-325-0129 Also I would appreciate it if you wouldacknowledge your receipt of this e-mail
Background
In response to a records request I recently received redactedexecutive session minutes for the following dates July 28 2010(first session) August 26 2010 February 2 2011 February 232011 (two sessions) and March 2 2011 Although Mr Stern providedme with a sheet entitled Documents Exempt From OPRA request thatpurports to explain these redactions I am still unclear as to whythe matter was redacted and whether it was lawfully redacted
First I dont understand references such as NJSA 471A-11(12)(c) The version of OPRA that I have (plus every other oneIve seen) does not have internal numbers within NJSA471A-11 Am I correct that NJSA 471A-11(12)(c) isintended to refer to the exemption for records in connection withcollective negotiations including documents and statements ofstrategy or negotiating position and that NJSA 471A-11(7)is intended to refer to any record within the attorney-clientprivilege This paragraph shall not be construed as exempting fromaccess attorney or consultant bills or invoices except that suchbills or invoices may be redacted to remove any informationprotected by the attorney-client privilege Please advise
Second even if I correctly corresponded the claimed exemptions tothe OPRA statute I have no way of knowing whether the mattersredacted are actually exempt from access When a custodiansuppresses any portion of any requested record NJSA471A-5(g) requires him or her to state the ldquospecific basisrdquo foreach suppressed element Beyond stating the ldquospecific basisrdquo foreach suppressed element he or she is required to ldquoproduce
Records Request
1 of 2 622011 810 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 49 of 77
specific reliable evidence sufficient to meet a statutorilyrecognized basis for confidentialityrdquo Courier News v HunterdonCounty Prosecutorrsquos Office 358 NJ Super 373 382-83 (App Div2003) Further he or she must explain each suppression in amanner that ldquowill enable other parties to assess the applicabilityof the privilege or protectionrdquo Paff v New Jersey Department ofLabor Board of Review 379 NJ Super 346 354-55 (2005)(quoting R 410-2(e))
Records requested
Runnemede Board of Education minutes for the following dates July28 2010 (728 pm session only) August 26 2010 February 22011 February 23 2011 (both sessions) and March 2 2011 Iwould like these minutes redacted as narrowly as possible if atall For each redaction I request a written explanation thatmeets the requirements of the case law cited above
cc Phil Stern
Records Request
2 of 2 622011 810 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 50 of 77
Subject Re Fwd Runnemede Board of Education Open PublicMeetings ActFrom John Paff ltpaffpoboxcomgtDate Mon 09 May 2011 134726 -0400To Nancy Ward ltnwardrunnemedeschoolsorggt
Thank you
On 592011 116 PM Nancy Ward wrote
Mr Paff
The Board has named me Custodian of Records Please direct allfuturecommunication to me The May 10 2011 meeting is theRe-organization ofthe Runnemede Board of Education The agenda is set and is verycomprehensive I intend to defer the letter and any discussionregardingits content to the next regular meeting the date of which willbe setat the re-organization tomorrow night In keeping with thedistrictsmeeting pattern that will be May 25 2011
Nancy BWard EdD
Superintendent of Schools
-----Original Message-----From John PaffSent 572011 42300 PMTo nwardrunnemedeschoolsorgCc vcarmodyrunnemedeschoolsorg psternasgllawcomSubject Fwd Runnemede Board of Education Open Public MeetingsAct
Here is another e-mail in case my original one should have beendirected to Ms Ward and not Ms Carmody
JP
-------- Original Message --------Subject Runnemede Board of Education Open Public Meetings ActDate Sat 07 May 2011 152319 -0400From John Paff
Re Fwd Runnemede Board of Education Open Public Meetings Act
1 of 2 622011 811 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 51 of 77
Reply-To paffpoboxcomTo vcarmodyrunnemedeschoolsorg psternasgllawcom
Ms Carmody and Mr Stern
Attached is a letter that I would like the Board to consider atits May10 2011 meeting Would you please a) acknowledge receipt of theletterand b) distribute it to all the Board members
Note that the last paragraph of the letter indicates that I willfilesuit against the Board if the issues in the letter arentaddressedSo if the Boards agenda for the May 10th meeting is so tightthat myletter cannot be accommodated please advise me of such andprovide ameeting date where my letter will be addressed so that I knowthat I amnot being ignored
Thank you
John Paff ChairmanNew Jersey Libertarian PartysOpen Government Advocacy Project
Re Fwd Runnemede Board of Education Open Public Meetings Act
2 of 2 622011 811 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 52 of 77
Subject OPRA RequestFrom Philip Stern ltpsternasgllawcomgtDate Fri 20 May 2011 161015 -0500To paffpoboxcom ltpaffpoboxcomgtCC Nancy Ward ltnwardrunnemedeschoolsorggt
Mr Paff please find attached to this email a response to your request forbusiness records Please note that in providing you with the attachedrecords the Runnemede Borough Board of Education waives no rightsregarding the attorney-client privilege Do not hesitate to call me if youhave any questions Phil Stern
Philip E SternAdams Stern Gutierrez amp Lattiboudere LLCThe Legal Center1037 Raymond Blvd Suite 710Newark New Jersey 07102(973) 735-2742 (office telephone)(201) 914-2415 (cellular telephone)(973) 735-2743 (office telefax)
May 20 Paff responsepdf
Content-DescriptionMay 20 Paffresponsepdf
Content-Type applicationpdf
Content-Encoding base64
OPRA Request
1 of 1 622011 815 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 53 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 54 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 55 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 56 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 57 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 58 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 59 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 60 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 61 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 62 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 63 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 64 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 65 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 66 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 67 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 68 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 69 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 70 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 71 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 72 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 73 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 74 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 75 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 76 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 77 of 77
- Civil Complaint
- Exhibits
-
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 15 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 16 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 17 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 18 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 19 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 20 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 21 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 22 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 23 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 24 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 25 of 77
Idled officials payout riles Runnemede
By BARBARA S ROTHSCHILD bull Courier-Post Staff bull March 5 2011
RUNNEMEDE mdash Although the school district is paying Business Administrator Kelly PetersBrazelton her full salary to stay home while paying for an interim employee RunnemedeSuperintendent Nancy Ward said it could have cost more not to have a separationagreement
New Jersey is a very litigious state she said In order to avoid litigation which neveris a good thing a separation agreement gives you a certain outcome
Brazelton a Deptford resident and the former business administrator for the SomerdalePublic School District began working for Runnemede schools in August 2008 Her mostrecent contract for July 1 2010 through June 30 is for $99465 plus benefits
But the relationship soured and the district would not comment on specifics citingconfidentiality
A letter from staff members written to Ward and the school board in July 2010 gaveexamples of a hostile work environment that they said was created by the businessadministrator
Brazelton could not be reached Her attorney Joseph Betley of Mount Laurel said hisclient signed the separation agreement in good faith
There was a disagreement between the board and Kelly he said It was resolved andboth sides decided to move on
She disputes any and all allegations regarding a hostile work environment It wassimply Kelly doing her job
The separation agreement and release dated Oct 20 stipulates Brazelton be placed ona paid leave of absence from Sept 23 to April 15 at which time she would irrevocablyresign
School board President Colleen Kurth said it was much easier to go with a separationagreement than pay more legal fees
She compared paying Brazelton to paying a teacher out sick while a substitute fills in
The job just has to go on Kurth said
Interim Business Administrator Valerie Carmody who retired from the same post in EastGreenwich last year was hired Dec 1 at $60 per hour 24 hours maximum per weekHer contract ends June 30
New Jersey School Boards Association spokesman Mike Yaple said such separationagreements are infrequent
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 26 of 77
No school board willingly enters into an agreement like this he insisted But eventhough its not a popular decision its the lesser of two evils
Residents unhappy about the districts handling of the situation include Dan Conard ajournalism student at Rowan University Conard writes a blog where he discusses schooldistrict and municipal matters To comment on this topic he filed Open Public RecordsAct (OPRA) document requests
I just wanted to get it out there so people know what is going on Conard said
Ward said she has no quarrel with the student but believes Brazeltons case is anunusual circumstance
It (the separation agreement) was the most responsible thing the district could havedone she insisted Was it a bitter pill to swallow It took the board (a while) beforethey felt it was something they could do but it makes the most sense
Ward said the part-time arrangement with Carmody is working out well and that as thedistrict improves efficiency it is unlikely another full-time business administrator will behired particularly when Executive County Superintendent Peggy Nicolosi has advisedagainst it
Among the options being considered are another part-time business administrator or ashared-service agreement with another district
Ward said she would have preferred the money being expended in this case be spent oneducational programs and teachers particularly this year
Although voters passed Runnemedes 2010-11 budget while many others were defeatedlast April the district of 853 students in K-8 lost six staffers and streamlined its gifted-and-talented program after state aid was cut
Ward also defended the decision to keep a maintenance techniciansupervisor positioncreated in 2008 noting it has saved at least $145000 each year
Mark Speck of Voorhees earns $50000 in the post Through June 2010 it was filled byDoug McGarry a former building and grounds supervisor in the Somerdale district Heearned $60000 in Runnemede but had more experience than Speck Ward said
Before Brazelton arrived in Runnemede the business administrator also served asmaintenance supervisor Ward said that actually cost the district more because it had topay outside maintenance workers sometimes for faulty work
Many things had been done to the facilities that were not to the boards satisfactionshe said That first year with our own maintenance person we saved $145000 becausewe hired a person who fixed things
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 27 of 77
Speck works with vendors going over bids and quotes and also does minor repairs thatno longer have to be paid for piecemeal Ward said the position is staying in the 2011-2012 budget adopted preliminarily on Wednesday
Hes the guy whos here at 4 am making sure weve got snow plows when we needthem Ward said Hes dirty and sweaty -- and hes excellent
Ward said the budget sent to the county includes a $78 annual tax increase for theowner of a home assessed at the $97800 borough average but does not cut staff orprograms
Kurth hopes to tweak the budget and lower the tax hike before it is introduced to thepublic on March 23 But she agreed the maintenance supervisor will stay
That was an investment on the part of the school district Kurth said
Reach Barbara S Rothschild at (856) 486-2416 or barothschildcamdengannettcom
--Comments
User Imageamonkeycoulddoit wroteThe mayor cant hear you because she doesnt even know how to turn on a computerNot that it was a requirement that the mayor should know how to use one I think theonly requirement is that they have a pulse And she does but barely372011 12406 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imageamonkeycoulddoit wroteTo sickofpolsnj it does seem that snoopysam has some inside information And whenyou say hows that mayors race looking I hope that you dont mean that someone fromthe disfunctional school board is going to run for mayor or council or some other electedposition considering the mess that they made on the school board372011 11832 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imageamonkeycoulddoit wroteIf the school board president had listened to staff when the hostil work enviroment issuestarted then she might not be in this pickle She should have spent the money on thelegal fees because if everything is true about the hostile enviroment then they wouldhave won the lawsuit hands down and not had to pay out anything and gotten their legalfees back Another example of elected officials not capable of doing the job they are inLets hope that some people come out of the woodwork to run for school board peoplewho care about the kids and the taxpayers372011 11309 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imageamonkeycoulddoit wrote
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 28 of 77
The school boad is not as inept as the mayor and council You dont have to be a collegegraduate or or even be able to read or write to get an elected position in runnemedeThe 2 new council members got elected because the are involved in the union andeveryone who supports the union came out to vote And the new mayor must have a lotof friends But now after the few months they have been in office it is clear to see thatthey are not able to handle the job Mayor14 is right that the people of Runnemedevoted because they thought they would get something in return for their vote but itlooks like they were wrong In the upcoming elections for school board and council votefor the person who will do the best job whether you like them or not Dont just vote forsomeone because you are told to372011 10214 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagethemayor14 wrotei am so glad this article was written and it clearly points out how inept the runnemedeboard of education actually is the board of education is not elected based on businessand education talent the elections are nothing more than a popularity contest i dontknow how other towns operate but runnemede boro is a total joke when it come toelections be it school board or general elections i wish everyone would get their headsout of their A$$ and truly investigate the school board canidates that are running forelection VOTE WITH YOUR HEAD NOT WITH YOUR HEART362011 91350 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagesavetheschools wroteSeveral people are running for the board for four open seats I signed a petition todayfor a new woman running Members are not paid If you live in Runnemede shopstewardyou have until Tuesday to get a petition submitted I asked and found out there is only 5people on average at the BOE meetings every month in Runnemede I hope more peoplestart to go I plan on it myself And we all need to go every month not just when weread negative press about our schools That is the only way we would all stay informedand not rely on the young man submitting OPRA requests Our town has always beenabout the kids and it needs to get back that way362011 80936 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser ImageShopsteward wroteWhy did it take one young man sending in OPRA requests to bring all this to lightWhy are you relying upon him to get to the bottom of it You say The other members(except for the one who was just arrested and resigned) are good people and didnothing wrong to the district and that might be true except for the fact that theyallowed that incredible salary and benefits to be given out and even though all kinds ofrumors were flying around it took an outsider with OPRA requests to bring this ghastlypimple to a head Sounds more like none of them are doing their jobs and should be outof office and off the payroll They should all just resign They arent doing the job thatwas assigned to them362011 32559 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Image
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 29 of 77
Shopsteward wroteA crime was committed here It began with a violation of the Publics trust by the peoplewho allowed this contract to be signed in the first place What a jokeHow many moreof these jobs are hidden in the budgets of our Schools There needs to be a thouroughcleaning of all thses tyeps of employees everywhere At the State County Municipaland Scool board level and the appointed Authorities too Everyone screams about theUnions but whenever you hear of some great big abuse it turns out the person wasnteven in the UnionClean up this mess first Mr Christie before yougo after the little guys It will save us all a lot more money362011 101606 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser ImageShopsteward wroteI still dont get itHow is a part time24 hr a week job worth so much This is aprime example of the waste that is giving the public workers a bad nameThe onlyproblem is it isnt some Union personIts management and its the same all over This isjust the tip of the iceberg they scream about the Unions but the real waste is in jobs likethis oneNo way this job or the thousands of others like it should be paid so well99465 PLUS BENEFITS incrediblethere should be a lawandthe person gets a pension based on that bloated salarytooThere should be other people losing their jobs not for theseperation aggreement but for letting this evenhappen352011 101125 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagethesplits wroteI guess this is Runnemedes version of a shared service352011 73450 PM
User Imagethesplits wroteLooks like its the same old Runnemede and I thought we voted for change Mayor352011 73202 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagesavetheschools wroteFrom what I understand and I live in town the board went into this separationagreement because the BA would have had a potential lawsuit and it would have costthe school district and tax payers a ton of money Much more than they are spendingnow And yes it is one school board member who was apparently corrupt Just one Theyoung man who was mentioned in the article has been OPRA requesting items and willget to the bottom of this situation with the former BA and the certain board memberBut that is just one person The other members (except for the one who was justarrested and resigned) are good people and did nothing wrong to the district Thisformer BA and her friend who was hired as the maint supervisor have been a hot topicfor a few years Ask the employees they were awful and needed to go It is awful thatthis money was not spent on our children It was a trainwreck from the beginning and ifI recall correctly when the hiring took place only one of the members voted no and that
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 30 of 77
was the local high school teacher metioned in another post Runnemede schools arefantastic and maybe the new people running for election will get some answers andmake some changes And maybe the BOE member who was mentioned by employees asbeing the reason why there could be a possible lawsuit should just resign I understandadmin make good money but they also need to be accountable for their actions and ifthe BA made a hostile environment and was supported by one BOE member both shouldbe gonenot just the BA352011 33207 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagecookmom wroteWhere is Gov Christies veto power352011 30321 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagecookmom wroteThis all happened with a local police officer and a FOP member and local high schoolteacher and member of the NJEA on the board The Runnemede Board is looking alotlike the DRPA and was this group picked by the new Mayor352011 30042 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagesickofpolsnj wroteThe real truth is the Board of Education member and Brazelton and the unethicalsituation that THEY created The questionable contracts and underhanded deals There isa certain Board Member that hopes that this ends here well it doesnt There is not aTeacher or employee in Runnemede Schools that would defend Brazelton same goes forSomerdale And many are willing to bring out MANY of the things that Brazelton did todestroy the district The ENTIRE Runnemede School Community is thrilled that Brazeltonis gone Snoopysam is clearly one of two people Kelly or the Board Member shouldwe name names Hows that Mayors race looking352011 114254 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser ImageShopsteward wrote$99465 plus benefits How much does she pay for her share of those benefitsor are they free to her Her replacement only works 24 hours a week are we being toldthat she got that much money for a part time job What is the matter with theidiots that hired her to begin withNo one should get that kind of money for a part timeThat is an awful lot of money for that kind of job We should not be surprised at all Thiskind of thing is everywhere in Camden CountyIts the NORMAL way of doingbusiness352011 113922 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagelookfar111 wroteYep same old story hire someone for $98000 when 10 equally qualified people woulddo it for 60k with a 20 year top out at 75 k Then a sweetheart adios gift And the cherry
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 31 of 77
on top Another tax increase for the people God I hate what the democrat machinehave done to this once great state352011 111649 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser ImageSnoopysam wrotesickofpolsnj you must be on ot those employees that Brazelton held accountable forHER actions You are right there is so much more to this story and when the real truthscome out there will be some emplopyeesadministratorsboard members hanging theirheads in shame Talk about wasting taxpayer dollars take a look at some of the lazyincompetent employees that Brazelton had to deal withand their HUGE mistakes thathad to be corrected which cost the taxpayers thousands upon thousands of dollars352011 94250 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagesickofpolsnj wroteYou are exactly correct A teacher would never get a sweatheart deal like this I wonderwhich Board Member it was that was mentioned in that letter Did you read the blog thatthis all came out on it has way more details than this articlehttpdansviewrunnemedewordpresscom352011 92934 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagesickofpolsnj wroteOnly thing is Runnemede never had these issues Somerdale had the same EXACT issueswith Brazelton Administrators arent allowed to comment however talk to the teachersand employees off record they will tell you all about Kelly352011 92726 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagesickofpolsnj wroteThere is so much more to this story I hope the CP will run a follow up 1 Look into therealtionship and hiring surrounding Doug the maintenance supervisor 2 Check intoBrazeltons past employment Somerdale Schools 3 Brazelton is rumored to be hired atthe completion of the settlement in Deptford 4 Look into unethical practices between aBoard Member and Brazelton 5 And what about the other Board member that wasrecently charged with a serious crime352011 92315 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imageicallbullschit wroteOnce again the government tries to pin their mistakes on an individual when they screwup royally What the paper fails to report is the other side Maybe years and years ofmismanagement and patronage were uncovered and it became a hostile environmentwhen people got called on their actions and the same old routine was stopped Maybethe school board realized it would be cheaper to pay one than to pay many for theirmistakes Maybe the school board was willing to pay in order to keep their dirty littlesecrets covered up Maybe the resident should look deeper into the actions of the schoolboard and the rest of the administration Maybe I am wrong but it seems that the board
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 32 of 77
got called on some issues and now they are attacking one individual to cover theirtracks They seem to be acting like the GREAT WIZARD OF OZ Pay no attention to theidiots behind the curtain we are the all powerful and all knowing school board Pull backthe curtain people because there are people behind there that are faking their waythrough and going to wind up costing the district millions Just saying352011 85642 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagecookmom wroteSchool board President Colleen Kurth said it was much easier to go with a separationagreement than pay more legal fees She compared paying Brazelton to paying ateacher out sick while a substitute fills in The job just has to go on Kurth said I amconfused A teacher out SICK is NOT the same as a HOSTILE work enviorment How cana medical condition be compared to a person being accused of a hostile workenviorment A teacher would be REQUIRED to use their sick days~ since this is beingcompared to an illness ~was Brazelton REQUIRED to give up her sickvacation pay orwas that part of the dealWas she also paid for those days Wouldnt we all love to becollecting a salary from two towns As now she is being paid by Runnemde AND acurrent SCHOOL district where she is currently employed THIS is the waste in ourSchool districts352011 83552 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imageneocon wroteShe is part of the Protected Classes All you need to know is that she is better thanyou so just keep moveing along Nothing to see here352011 81912 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report Abuse
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 33 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 34 of 77
New Jersey Libertarian PartyOpen Government Advocacy Project
John Paff Chairman
PO Box 5424
Somerset NJ 08875-5424
Phone 732-873-1251 - Fax 908-325-0129
Email lpsmcpoboxcom
May 7 2011
Hon Colleen Kurth President and members of the
Runnemede Board of Education
505 W Third Ave
Runnemede NJ 08078 (via e-mail to vcarmodyrunnemedeschoolsorg )
Dear President Kurth and Board members
I write both individually and on behalf the New Jersey Libertarian Partys Open
Government Advocacy Project to comment on 1) the manner in which the Board of Education
goes into nonpublic (ie executive or closed) session and 2) the level of detail contained within
the Boardrsquos executive session minutes
Issue 1 Executive Session resolutions
As you are aware the Senator Byron M Baer Open Public Meetings Act requires public
bodies such as the Runnemede Board of Education to publicly pass a resolution before
excluding the public from a meeting The statute that requires the resolution states
NJSA 104-13mdashClosed meetings resolution to conduct
No public body shall exclude the public from any meeting to discuss any
matter described in subsection 7 b (104-12) until the public body shall
first adopt a resolution at a meeting to which the public shall be admitted
a Stating the general nature of the subject to be discussed and
b Stating as precisely as possible the time when and the circumstances
under which the discussion conducted in closed session of the public body
can be disclosed to the public
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 35 of 77
2
By way of a recent records request I received resolutions which purport to authorize
executive sessions intended to be held by the Board of Education on July 28 2010 (2 sessions)
August 20 2010 February 2 1011 February 23 2011 (2 sessions) and March 2 2011 Those
resolutions which are virtually identical to each other state
Executive Session to discuss student matters personnel contractual and
legal matters [time and a statement as to whether action will be
taken]
[identity of maker of motion etc]
Resolved that pursuant to Section 8 of the Public Meetings Act the public
shall be excluded from that portion of the meeting involving the discussion
of personnel legal and contractual matters Further resolved that
discussion of such subject matters discussed in Executive Session can be
disclosed to public upon official action if any at the conclusion of the
executive session or at a public session at some later date
I dont think that this form of resolution satisfies NJSA 104-13 because it gives the
public no real sense of what is being privately discussed1 To paraphrase the highest court of of
another state a body which only announces ldquolegal mattersrdquo or ldquopersonnel negotiationsrdquo for
going into executive session has said nothing It might has well have stated to the audience
ldquoLadies and gentlemen we are going into executive sessionrdquo and stopped there Hinds County
Board of Supervisors v Common Cause of Mississippi 551 So2d 107 114 (MS 1989)
Of course there can be no dispute that the Board of Education often has legitimate
reasons to meet in nonpublic session Among these reasons is the need to prevent the adverse
parties in litigation or contract negotiations from gaining an unfair advantage and to allow
members of the governing body to debate and deliberate personnel matters without public
scrutiny or participation But the need to discuss matters privately should not prevent the
public from being informed as precisely as possible of the topics that are being privately
discussed
For example suppose that Runnemede Board is being sued by a Mr Jones who was
injured after he slipped and fell on what he claims to be negligently maintained school
property Since the lawsuit is already a public record there is no public purpose served by
vaguely describing a private discussion of it as ldquostudent matters personnel contractual and
legal mattersrdquo Rather the resolution should at the very least describe the private discussion as
1 In January 2007 when I most recently litigated this issue Middlesex County Superior Court Judge Alexander P
Waugh issued a written decision in which he agreed with other court decisions that closed session resolutions
should contain as much information as is consistent with full public knowledge without doing any harm to the
public interest Judge Waughs decision and other case documents are on the Web at
httpogtfarchiveorgOGTFMonroeBOEWebreadypdf
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 36 of 77
3
ldquoDiscussion of slip and fall negligence suit Jones v Runnemede Board Docket No CAM-L-
012345-11rdquo This way the public has a very good sense of what the Boardrsquos private discussion is
about while the ability of the Board to develop its lawsuit strategy is not undermined
Using the same example suppose that Jonesrsquo attorney sent the Boardrsquos attorney an offer
to fully settle the lawsuit upon the Boardrsquos payment of $20000 While the Board would
obviously need to discuss how to respond to the offer in private lest Jones or his attorney
would be in the audience witnessing the discussion there is no reason why the public cannot be
informed in the NJSA 104-13 resolution that the Board will meet in private to discuss ldquoa
settlement offer received from the Plaintiff in the slip and fall negligence suit known as Jones v
Runnemede Board Docket No CAM-L-012345-11 in which the Plaintiff offers to settle the suit
in exchange for the Board paying him $20000rdquo While it may initially seem that this would
provide ldquotoo muchrdquo information to the public this concern disappears once it is realized that
the sole purpose of the exception2 that allows litigation matters to be discussed in private is to
keep the adverse party to the litigation in the dark regarding the Boardrsquos position3 Since in this
example the adverse party (ie Jones) already knows that he offered to settle the lawsuit for
$20000 there is no legitimate reason why the public should not also know of the tendered
settlement offer
As another example suppose that a personnel matter such as whether or not a Mrs
Smith a public works employee should be disciplined because of repeatedly arriving late to
work is to be discussed in closed session In such a case the amount of detail set forth in the
NJSA 104-13 resolution should correspond to the amount of detail that the Board and its
attorney predict will be publicly disclosed in the closed meetingrsquos minutes when those minutes
are made public
The standard that the Board is to use when determining how much information about a
personnel matter is to be disclosed in the closed sessionrsquos minutes is set forth in South Jersey
Publishing Company Inc v New Jersey Expressway Authority 124 NJ 478 (1991) That
standard is that a) the public needs information if it is properly fulfill its role of evaluating the
wisdom of governmental action or a decision not to act b) that New Jerseys strong public
policy requires that a public bodyrsquos actions and decisions to not act be disclosed in the bodys
closed meeting minutes along with sufficient facts and information to permit the public to
understand and appraise the reasonableness of the bodys determination and c) to the extent a
cognizable privacy interest may be compromised by the required disclosure the extent of
disclosure may be modified through redactions of the minutes provided the public interest in
disclosure is not subverted
2 NJSA104-12(b)(7) is to prevent adverse parties to litigation and contracts from learning the details of the
public bodyrsquos negotiation tactics and litigation strategy3 See the discussion in Paff v Washington Township Docket No MER-L-2205-07 and Nevin v Asbury Park City
Board 2005 WL 2847974 (App Div November 1 2005) which are on-line at
httpogtfarchiveorgOGTFWashingtonpdf (Nevin begins at page 44 of the PDF file at the link)
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 37 of 77
4
Thus regardless of whether the Board disciplines Ms Smith or chooses to not impose
discipline due to her lateness the outcome should be recorded in the closed meeting minutes
The question of whether that entry in the minutes should be redacted before the minutes are
made public requires a balancing of Ms Smithrsquos interest in keeping the disciplinary matter
private against the publicrsquos interest in effectively monitoring the Board If the Board with
counselrsquos advice determines after balancing these interests that the outcome will be published
unredacted in the closed sessionrsquos minutes (ie if the minutes will disclose to the public eg that
ldquoMs Smith was suspended for three days on account of her habitual latenessrdquo) then the exact
nature of the matter (ie that ldquothe Board will discuss disciplining Ms Smith for excessive
latenessrdquo) should be set forth in the closed meetingrsquos NJSA 104-13 resolution Inversely if the
Board determines that Ms Smithrsquos privacy interest exceeds the publicrsquos right to know then less
information (eg ldquothe Board will discuss disciplining an employee for excessive latenessrdquo)
should be set forth in the closed meetingrsquos NJSA 104-13 resolution
In other words if the officer or employee being discussed doesnt have a privacy interest
sufficient to withstand a citizens request for the executive session minutes why should not the
public know the topic of the executive session prior to it occurring
Irsquove attached as Exhibit pages 1 -3 is a model resolution that I would like the Board to
use in the future
Issue 2 Executive Session minutes
Attached as Exhibit Page 4 as an example are the Boardrsquos July 28 2010 executive session
minutes It is troubling that a meeting that lasted over an hour is being summed up in a single
sentence ldquoMr Phil Stern addressed the Board of Education about personnel issuesrdquo These
minutes are not ldquoreasonably comprehensiblerdquo as required by NJSA 104-14
The purpose of closed meeting minutes is not merely to inform the public of whatoccurred during the private session but also to create a record for the Board membersthemselves A Board member who is newly elected in 2012 should be able by referringsolely to the minutes to figure out what issues the Board addressed during any previouslyheld closed meeting This hypothetical Board member after reading the July 28 2010closed minutes could not possibly figure out which employees or officials Mr Stern wastalking about
Better practice would be to record closed minutes that are much morecomprehensive but to redact that material that must be shielded from public view Forexample the minutes could have said
Mr Stern addressed the Board of Education about the habitualtardiness of 2nd grade teacher Mary Doe and her propensity to eatlibrary paste and scream hysterically during fire drills Herecommended that she be sent for psychiatric evaluation
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 38 of 77
5
Of course if a member of the public requested these hypothetical minutes the Boardmay need to redact them in order to protect privacy interests The point however is thatregardless of whether unredacted closed meeting minutes are ever released to the publicthey should contain sufficient details so that the Board members themselves can monthsor years later know what was discussed
Attached as Exhibit pages 5 ndash 9 is an order recently entered in Schmidt et al v City of
Gloucester City et al Docket No CAM-L-1287-11 As you can see paraA(3) supports my position
that the Boardrsquos minutes are not ldquoreasonably comprehensiblerdquo as required by law
Conclusion
Since some public bodies do not take my requests for Meetings Act compliance seriously
I regret having to inform the Board that I will sue for declaratory and injunctive relief in
accordance with NJSA 104-16 unless I receive assurances from the Boardmdashwithin a few days
after its May 10 2011 meetingmdashthat it will work in good faith to improve the amount of
information in both its closed session resolutions and minutes If the Boardrsquos agenda is already
set for the May 10 2011 meeting please at least acknowledge this letter and let me know the
date of the meeting at which it will be considered
Thank you very much for your attention to this matter I look forward to hearing from
you
Sincerely
John Paff
cc Philip E Stern Esq w enc (via e-mail to psternasgllawcom )
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 39 of 77
RUNNEMEDE BOARD OF EDUCATIONRESOLUTION NO ___________
AUTHORIZING EXECUTIVE SESSION
WHEREAS while the Sen Byron M Baer Open Public Meetings Act (NJSA 104-6 et seq) requires allmeetings of the Runnemede Board of Education to be held in public NJSA 104-12(b) sets forth nine (9)types of matters that may lawfully be discussed in ldquoExecutive Sessionrdquo ie without the public beingpermitted to attend and
WHEREAS the Runnemede Board of Education has determined that _____ (insert number) issues arepermitted by NJSA 104-12(b) to be discussed without the public in attendance shall be discussed duringan Executive Session to be held on _________________________ 20____ at _______ PM and
WHEREAS the nine (9) exceptions to public meetings set forth in NJSA 104-12(b) are listed below andnext to each exception is a box within which the number of issues to be privately discussed that fall withinthat exception shall be written and after each exception is a space where additional information that willdisclose as much information about the discussion as possible without undermining the purpose of theexception shall be written
ldquo(1) Any matter which by express provision of Federal law State statute or rule of courtshall be rendered confidential or excluded from public discussionrdquo The legal citation to theprovision(s) at issue is__________________________ and the nature of the matter described asspecifically as possible without undermining the need for confidentiality is _______________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(2) Any matter in which the release of information would impair a right to receive fundsfrom the federal governmentrdquo The nature of the matter described as specifically as possiblewithout undermining the need for confidentiality is _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(3) Any material the disclosure of which constitutes an unwarranted invasion of individualprivacy such as any records data reports recommendations or other personal material ofany educational training social service medical health custodial child protectionrehabilitation legal defense welfare housing relocation insurance and similar program orinstitution operated by a public body pertaining to any specific individual admitted to orserved by such institution or program including but not limited to information relative tothe individuals personal and family circumstances and any material pertaining toadmission discharge treatment progress or condition of any individual unless theindividual concerned (or in the case of a minor or incompetent his guardian) shall requestin writing that the same be disclosed publiclyrdquo The nature of the matter described asspecifically as possible without undermining the need for confidentiality is______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(4) Any collective bargaining agreement or the terms and conditions of which are proposedfor inclusion in any collective bargaining agreement including the negotiation of terms andconditions with employees or representatives of employees of the public bodyrdquo The collectivebargaining contract(s) discussed are between the Board and ____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Exhibit Page 1Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 40 of 77
ldquo(5) Any matter involving the purchase lease or acquisition of real property with publicfunds the setting of bank rates or investment of public funds where it could adversely affectthe public interest if discussion of such matters were disclosedrdquo The nature of the matterdescribed as specifically as possible without undermining the need for confidentiality is____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(6) Any tactics and techniques utilized in protecting the safety and property of the publicprovided that their disclosure could impair such protection Any investigations of violationsor possible violations of the lawrdquo The nature of the matter described as specifically as possiblewithout undermining the need for confidentiality is ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(7) Any pending or anticipated litigation or contract negotiation in which the public body isor may become a party Any matters falling within the attorney-client privilege to the extentthat confidentiality is required in order for the attorney to exercise his ethicalduties as a lawyerrdquo The parties to and docket numbers of each item of litigation andor theparties to each contract discussed are __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ andnature of the discussion described as specifically as possible without undermining the need forconfidentiality is ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(8) Any matter involving the employment appointment termination of employment termsand conditions of employment evaluation of the performance promotion or disciplining ofany specific prospective public officer or employee or current public officer or employeeemployed or appointed by the public body unless all individual employees or appointees whoserights could be adversely affected request in writing that such matter or matters be discussed ata public meetingrdquo Subject to the balancing of the publicrsquos interest and the employeersquos privacyrights under South Jersey Publishing Co v New Jersey Expressway Authority 124 NJ 478 theemployee(s) and nature of the discussion described as specifically as possible withoutundermining the need for confidentiality are _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(9) Any deliberation of a public body occurring after a public hearing that may result in theimposition of a specific civil penalty upon the responding party or the suspension or loss of alicense or permit belonging to the responding party as a result of an act of omission forwhich the responding party bears responsibilityrdquo The nature of the matter described asspecifically as possible without undermining the need for confidentiality is______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
WHEREAS the length of the Executive Session is estimated to be ________ minutes after which the publicmeeting of the Board shall (circle one) reconvene and immediately adjourn or reconvene and proceed withbusiness
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Runnemede Board of Education will go into ExecutiveSession for only the above stated reasons
Exhibit Page 2Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 41 of 77
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board hereby declares that its discussion of the aforementionedsubject(s) will be made public at a time when the publicrsquos interest in disclosure is greater than any privacy orgovernmental interest being protected from disclosure For each of the above items the estimated date bywhich such disclosure can be made andor the occurrence that needs to take place before disclosure can bemade are listed below (attach separate sheet if necessary)
Subject of Discussion Estimated Date Necessary Occurrence
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Clerk at the present public meeting shall read aloud enough ofthis resolution so that members of the public in attendance can understand as precisely as possible thenature of the matters that will privately discussed
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Clerk on the next business day following this meeting shallfurnish a copy of this resolution to any member of the public who requests one at the fees allowed byNJSA 471A-1 et seq
_________________________________Board President
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS ATRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTIONAPPROVED BY THE RUNNEMEDE BOARD OF EDUCATION AT ITSPUBLIC MEETING HELD ON ______________________20___
_______________________________________Board Secretary
Exhibit Page 3Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 42 of 77
Exhibit Page 4Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 43 of 77
Exhibit Page 5Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 44 of 77
Exhibit Page 6Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 45 of 77
Exhibit Page 7Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 46 of 77
Exhibit Page 8Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 47 of 77
Exhibit Page 9Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 48 of 77
Subject Records RequestFrom John Paff ltpaffpoboxcomgtDate Sat 07 May 2011 161444 -0400To vcarmodyrunnemedeschoolsorgCC psternasgllawcom
Ms Carmody
Please accept this e-mail as my request for government records inaccordance with the Open Public Records Act (OPRA) and the commonlaw right of access Please respond and send all responsivedocuments to me via e-mail at paffpoboxcom If e-mail is notpossible please fax responses and responsive records to me at908-325-0129 Also I would appreciate it if you wouldacknowledge your receipt of this e-mail
Background
In response to a records request I recently received redactedexecutive session minutes for the following dates July 28 2010(first session) August 26 2010 February 2 2011 February 232011 (two sessions) and March 2 2011 Although Mr Stern providedme with a sheet entitled Documents Exempt From OPRA request thatpurports to explain these redactions I am still unclear as to whythe matter was redacted and whether it was lawfully redacted
First I dont understand references such as NJSA 471A-11(12)(c) The version of OPRA that I have (plus every other oneIve seen) does not have internal numbers within NJSA471A-11 Am I correct that NJSA 471A-11(12)(c) isintended to refer to the exemption for records in connection withcollective negotiations including documents and statements ofstrategy or negotiating position and that NJSA 471A-11(7)is intended to refer to any record within the attorney-clientprivilege This paragraph shall not be construed as exempting fromaccess attorney or consultant bills or invoices except that suchbills or invoices may be redacted to remove any informationprotected by the attorney-client privilege Please advise
Second even if I correctly corresponded the claimed exemptions tothe OPRA statute I have no way of knowing whether the mattersredacted are actually exempt from access When a custodiansuppresses any portion of any requested record NJSA471A-5(g) requires him or her to state the ldquospecific basisrdquo foreach suppressed element Beyond stating the ldquospecific basisrdquo foreach suppressed element he or she is required to ldquoproduce
Records Request
1 of 2 622011 810 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 49 of 77
specific reliable evidence sufficient to meet a statutorilyrecognized basis for confidentialityrdquo Courier News v HunterdonCounty Prosecutorrsquos Office 358 NJ Super 373 382-83 (App Div2003) Further he or she must explain each suppression in amanner that ldquowill enable other parties to assess the applicabilityof the privilege or protectionrdquo Paff v New Jersey Department ofLabor Board of Review 379 NJ Super 346 354-55 (2005)(quoting R 410-2(e))
Records requested
Runnemede Board of Education minutes for the following dates July28 2010 (728 pm session only) August 26 2010 February 22011 February 23 2011 (both sessions) and March 2 2011 Iwould like these minutes redacted as narrowly as possible if atall For each redaction I request a written explanation thatmeets the requirements of the case law cited above
cc Phil Stern
Records Request
2 of 2 622011 810 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 50 of 77
Subject Re Fwd Runnemede Board of Education Open PublicMeetings ActFrom John Paff ltpaffpoboxcomgtDate Mon 09 May 2011 134726 -0400To Nancy Ward ltnwardrunnemedeschoolsorggt
Thank you
On 592011 116 PM Nancy Ward wrote
Mr Paff
The Board has named me Custodian of Records Please direct allfuturecommunication to me The May 10 2011 meeting is theRe-organization ofthe Runnemede Board of Education The agenda is set and is verycomprehensive I intend to defer the letter and any discussionregardingits content to the next regular meeting the date of which willbe setat the re-organization tomorrow night In keeping with thedistrictsmeeting pattern that will be May 25 2011
Nancy BWard EdD
Superintendent of Schools
-----Original Message-----From John PaffSent 572011 42300 PMTo nwardrunnemedeschoolsorgCc vcarmodyrunnemedeschoolsorg psternasgllawcomSubject Fwd Runnemede Board of Education Open Public MeetingsAct
Here is another e-mail in case my original one should have beendirected to Ms Ward and not Ms Carmody
JP
-------- Original Message --------Subject Runnemede Board of Education Open Public Meetings ActDate Sat 07 May 2011 152319 -0400From John Paff
Re Fwd Runnemede Board of Education Open Public Meetings Act
1 of 2 622011 811 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 51 of 77
Reply-To paffpoboxcomTo vcarmodyrunnemedeschoolsorg psternasgllawcom
Ms Carmody and Mr Stern
Attached is a letter that I would like the Board to consider atits May10 2011 meeting Would you please a) acknowledge receipt of theletterand b) distribute it to all the Board members
Note that the last paragraph of the letter indicates that I willfilesuit against the Board if the issues in the letter arentaddressedSo if the Boards agenda for the May 10th meeting is so tightthat myletter cannot be accommodated please advise me of such andprovide ameeting date where my letter will be addressed so that I knowthat I amnot being ignored
Thank you
John Paff ChairmanNew Jersey Libertarian PartysOpen Government Advocacy Project
Re Fwd Runnemede Board of Education Open Public Meetings Act
2 of 2 622011 811 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 52 of 77
Subject OPRA RequestFrom Philip Stern ltpsternasgllawcomgtDate Fri 20 May 2011 161015 -0500To paffpoboxcom ltpaffpoboxcomgtCC Nancy Ward ltnwardrunnemedeschoolsorggt
Mr Paff please find attached to this email a response to your request forbusiness records Please note that in providing you with the attachedrecords the Runnemede Borough Board of Education waives no rightsregarding the attorney-client privilege Do not hesitate to call me if youhave any questions Phil Stern
Philip E SternAdams Stern Gutierrez amp Lattiboudere LLCThe Legal Center1037 Raymond Blvd Suite 710Newark New Jersey 07102(973) 735-2742 (office telephone)(201) 914-2415 (cellular telephone)(973) 735-2743 (office telefax)
May 20 Paff responsepdf
Content-DescriptionMay 20 Paffresponsepdf
Content-Type applicationpdf
Content-Encoding base64
OPRA Request
1 of 1 622011 815 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 53 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 54 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 55 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 56 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 57 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 58 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 59 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 60 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 61 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 62 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 63 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 64 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 65 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 66 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 67 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 68 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 69 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 70 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 71 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 72 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 73 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 74 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 75 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 76 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 77 of 77
- Civil Complaint
- Exhibits
-
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 16 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 17 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 18 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 19 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 20 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 21 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 22 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 23 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 24 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 25 of 77
Idled officials payout riles Runnemede
By BARBARA S ROTHSCHILD bull Courier-Post Staff bull March 5 2011
RUNNEMEDE mdash Although the school district is paying Business Administrator Kelly PetersBrazelton her full salary to stay home while paying for an interim employee RunnemedeSuperintendent Nancy Ward said it could have cost more not to have a separationagreement
New Jersey is a very litigious state she said In order to avoid litigation which neveris a good thing a separation agreement gives you a certain outcome
Brazelton a Deptford resident and the former business administrator for the SomerdalePublic School District began working for Runnemede schools in August 2008 Her mostrecent contract for July 1 2010 through June 30 is for $99465 plus benefits
But the relationship soured and the district would not comment on specifics citingconfidentiality
A letter from staff members written to Ward and the school board in July 2010 gaveexamples of a hostile work environment that they said was created by the businessadministrator
Brazelton could not be reached Her attorney Joseph Betley of Mount Laurel said hisclient signed the separation agreement in good faith
There was a disagreement between the board and Kelly he said It was resolved andboth sides decided to move on
She disputes any and all allegations regarding a hostile work environment It wassimply Kelly doing her job
The separation agreement and release dated Oct 20 stipulates Brazelton be placed ona paid leave of absence from Sept 23 to April 15 at which time she would irrevocablyresign
School board President Colleen Kurth said it was much easier to go with a separationagreement than pay more legal fees
She compared paying Brazelton to paying a teacher out sick while a substitute fills in
The job just has to go on Kurth said
Interim Business Administrator Valerie Carmody who retired from the same post in EastGreenwich last year was hired Dec 1 at $60 per hour 24 hours maximum per weekHer contract ends June 30
New Jersey School Boards Association spokesman Mike Yaple said such separationagreements are infrequent
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 26 of 77
No school board willingly enters into an agreement like this he insisted But eventhough its not a popular decision its the lesser of two evils
Residents unhappy about the districts handling of the situation include Dan Conard ajournalism student at Rowan University Conard writes a blog where he discusses schooldistrict and municipal matters To comment on this topic he filed Open Public RecordsAct (OPRA) document requests
I just wanted to get it out there so people know what is going on Conard said
Ward said she has no quarrel with the student but believes Brazeltons case is anunusual circumstance
It (the separation agreement) was the most responsible thing the district could havedone she insisted Was it a bitter pill to swallow It took the board (a while) beforethey felt it was something they could do but it makes the most sense
Ward said the part-time arrangement with Carmody is working out well and that as thedistrict improves efficiency it is unlikely another full-time business administrator will behired particularly when Executive County Superintendent Peggy Nicolosi has advisedagainst it
Among the options being considered are another part-time business administrator or ashared-service agreement with another district
Ward said she would have preferred the money being expended in this case be spent oneducational programs and teachers particularly this year
Although voters passed Runnemedes 2010-11 budget while many others were defeatedlast April the district of 853 students in K-8 lost six staffers and streamlined its gifted-and-talented program after state aid was cut
Ward also defended the decision to keep a maintenance techniciansupervisor positioncreated in 2008 noting it has saved at least $145000 each year
Mark Speck of Voorhees earns $50000 in the post Through June 2010 it was filled byDoug McGarry a former building and grounds supervisor in the Somerdale district Heearned $60000 in Runnemede but had more experience than Speck Ward said
Before Brazelton arrived in Runnemede the business administrator also served asmaintenance supervisor Ward said that actually cost the district more because it had topay outside maintenance workers sometimes for faulty work
Many things had been done to the facilities that were not to the boards satisfactionshe said That first year with our own maintenance person we saved $145000 becausewe hired a person who fixed things
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 27 of 77
Speck works with vendors going over bids and quotes and also does minor repairs thatno longer have to be paid for piecemeal Ward said the position is staying in the 2011-2012 budget adopted preliminarily on Wednesday
Hes the guy whos here at 4 am making sure weve got snow plows when we needthem Ward said Hes dirty and sweaty -- and hes excellent
Ward said the budget sent to the county includes a $78 annual tax increase for theowner of a home assessed at the $97800 borough average but does not cut staff orprograms
Kurth hopes to tweak the budget and lower the tax hike before it is introduced to thepublic on March 23 But she agreed the maintenance supervisor will stay
That was an investment on the part of the school district Kurth said
Reach Barbara S Rothschild at (856) 486-2416 or barothschildcamdengannettcom
--Comments
User Imageamonkeycoulddoit wroteThe mayor cant hear you because she doesnt even know how to turn on a computerNot that it was a requirement that the mayor should know how to use one I think theonly requirement is that they have a pulse And she does but barely372011 12406 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imageamonkeycoulddoit wroteTo sickofpolsnj it does seem that snoopysam has some inside information And whenyou say hows that mayors race looking I hope that you dont mean that someone fromthe disfunctional school board is going to run for mayor or council or some other electedposition considering the mess that they made on the school board372011 11832 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imageamonkeycoulddoit wroteIf the school board president had listened to staff when the hostil work enviroment issuestarted then she might not be in this pickle She should have spent the money on thelegal fees because if everything is true about the hostile enviroment then they wouldhave won the lawsuit hands down and not had to pay out anything and gotten their legalfees back Another example of elected officials not capable of doing the job they are inLets hope that some people come out of the woodwork to run for school board peoplewho care about the kids and the taxpayers372011 11309 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imageamonkeycoulddoit wrote
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 28 of 77
The school boad is not as inept as the mayor and council You dont have to be a collegegraduate or or even be able to read or write to get an elected position in runnemedeThe 2 new council members got elected because the are involved in the union andeveryone who supports the union came out to vote And the new mayor must have a lotof friends But now after the few months they have been in office it is clear to see thatthey are not able to handle the job Mayor14 is right that the people of Runnemedevoted because they thought they would get something in return for their vote but itlooks like they were wrong In the upcoming elections for school board and council votefor the person who will do the best job whether you like them or not Dont just vote forsomeone because you are told to372011 10214 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagethemayor14 wrotei am so glad this article was written and it clearly points out how inept the runnemedeboard of education actually is the board of education is not elected based on businessand education talent the elections are nothing more than a popularity contest i dontknow how other towns operate but runnemede boro is a total joke when it come toelections be it school board or general elections i wish everyone would get their headsout of their A$$ and truly investigate the school board canidates that are running forelection VOTE WITH YOUR HEAD NOT WITH YOUR HEART362011 91350 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagesavetheschools wroteSeveral people are running for the board for four open seats I signed a petition todayfor a new woman running Members are not paid If you live in Runnemede shopstewardyou have until Tuesday to get a petition submitted I asked and found out there is only 5people on average at the BOE meetings every month in Runnemede I hope more peoplestart to go I plan on it myself And we all need to go every month not just when weread negative press about our schools That is the only way we would all stay informedand not rely on the young man submitting OPRA requests Our town has always beenabout the kids and it needs to get back that way362011 80936 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser ImageShopsteward wroteWhy did it take one young man sending in OPRA requests to bring all this to lightWhy are you relying upon him to get to the bottom of it You say The other members(except for the one who was just arrested and resigned) are good people and didnothing wrong to the district and that might be true except for the fact that theyallowed that incredible salary and benefits to be given out and even though all kinds ofrumors were flying around it took an outsider with OPRA requests to bring this ghastlypimple to a head Sounds more like none of them are doing their jobs and should be outof office and off the payroll They should all just resign They arent doing the job thatwas assigned to them362011 32559 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Image
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 29 of 77
Shopsteward wroteA crime was committed here It began with a violation of the Publics trust by the peoplewho allowed this contract to be signed in the first place What a jokeHow many moreof these jobs are hidden in the budgets of our Schools There needs to be a thouroughcleaning of all thses tyeps of employees everywhere At the State County Municipaland Scool board level and the appointed Authorities too Everyone screams about theUnions but whenever you hear of some great big abuse it turns out the person wasnteven in the UnionClean up this mess first Mr Christie before yougo after the little guys It will save us all a lot more money362011 101606 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser ImageShopsteward wroteI still dont get itHow is a part time24 hr a week job worth so much This is aprime example of the waste that is giving the public workers a bad nameThe onlyproblem is it isnt some Union personIts management and its the same all over This isjust the tip of the iceberg they scream about the Unions but the real waste is in jobs likethis oneNo way this job or the thousands of others like it should be paid so well99465 PLUS BENEFITS incrediblethere should be a lawandthe person gets a pension based on that bloated salarytooThere should be other people losing their jobs not for theseperation aggreement but for letting this evenhappen352011 101125 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagethesplits wroteI guess this is Runnemedes version of a shared service352011 73450 PM
User Imagethesplits wroteLooks like its the same old Runnemede and I thought we voted for change Mayor352011 73202 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagesavetheschools wroteFrom what I understand and I live in town the board went into this separationagreement because the BA would have had a potential lawsuit and it would have costthe school district and tax payers a ton of money Much more than they are spendingnow And yes it is one school board member who was apparently corrupt Just one Theyoung man who was mentioned in the article has been OPRA requesting items and willget to the bottom of this situation with the former BA and the certain board memberBut that is just one person The other members (except for the one who was justarrested and resigned) are good people and did nothing wrong to the district Thisformer BA and her friend who was hired as the maint supervisor have been a hot topicfor a few years Ask the employees they were awful and needed to go It is awful thatthis money was not spent on our children It was a trainwreck from the beginning and ifI recall correctly when the hiring took place only one of the members voted no and that
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 30 of 77
was the local high school teacher metioned in another post Runnemede schools arefantastic and maybe the new people running for election will get some answers andmake some changes And maybe the BOE member who was mentioned by employees asbeing the reason why there could be a possible lawsuit should just resign I understandadmin make good money but they also need to be accountable for their actions and ifthe BA made a hostile environment and was supported by one BOE member both shouldbe gonenot just the BA352011 33207 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagecookmom wroteWhere is Gov Christies veto power352011 30321 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagecookmom wroteThis all happened with a local police officer and a FOP member and local high schoolteacher and member of the NJEA on the board The Runnemede Board is looking alotlike the DRPA and was this group picked by the new Mayor352011 30042 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagesickofpolsnj wroteThe real truth is the Board of Education member and Brazelton and the unethicalsituation that THEY created The questionable contracts and underhanded deals There isa certain Board Member that hopes that this ends here well it doesnt There is not aTeacher or employee in Runnemede Schools that would defend Brazelton same goes forSomerdale And many are willing to bring out MANY of the things that Brazelton did todestroy the district The ENTIRE Runnemede School Community is thrilled that Brazeltonis gone Snoopysam is clearly one of two people Kelly or the Board Member shouldwe name names Hows that Mayors race looking352011 114254 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser ImageShopsteward wrote$99465 plus benefits How much does she pay for her share of those benefitsor are they free to her Her replacement only works 24 hours a week are we being toldthat she got that much money for a part time job What is the matter with theidiots that hired her to begin withNo one should get that kind of money for a part timeThat is an awful lot of money for that kind of job We should not be surprised at all Thiskind of thing is everywhere in Camden CountyIts the NORMAL way of doingbusiness352011 113922 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagelookfar111 wroteYep same old story hire someone for $98000 when 10 equally qualified people woulddo it for 60k with a 20 year top out at 75 k Then a sweetheart adios gift And the cherry
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 31 of 77
on top Another tax increase for the people God I hate what the democrat machinehave done to this once great state352011 111649 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser ImageSnoopysam wrotesickofpolsnj you must be on ot those employees that Brazelton held accountable forHER actions You are right there is so much more to this story and when the real truthscome out there will be some emplopyeesadministratorsboard members hanging theirheads in shame Talk about wasting taxpayer dollars take a look at some of the lazyincompetent employees that Brazelton had to deal withand their HUGE mistakes thathad to be corrected which cost the taxpayers thousands upon thousands of dollars352011 94250 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagesickofpolsnj wroteYou are exactly correct A teacher would never get a sweatheart deal like this I wonderwhich Board Member it was that was mentioned in that letter Did you read the blog thatthis all came out on it has way more details than this articlehttpdansviewrunnemedewordpresscom352011 92934 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagesickofpolsnj wroteOnly thing is Runnemede never had these issues Somerdale had the same EXACT issueswith Brazelton Administrators arent allowed to comment however talk to the teachersand employees off record they will tell you all about Kelly352011 92726 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagesickofpolsnj wroteThere is so much more to this story I hope the CP will run a follow up 1 Look into therealtionship and hiring surrounding Doug the maintenance supervisor 2 Check intoBrazeltons past employment Somerdale Schools 3 Brazelton is rumored to be hired atthe completion of the settlement in Deptford 4 Look into unethical practices between aBoard Member and Brazelton 5 And what about the other Board member that wasrecently charged with a serious crime352011 92315 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imageicallbullschit wroteOnce again the government tries to pin their mistakes on an individual when they screwup royally What the paper fails to report is the other side Maybe years and years ofmismanagement and patronage were uncovered and it became a hostile environmentwhen people got called on their actions and the same old routine was stopped Maybethe school board realized it would be cheaper to pay one than to pay many for theirmistakes Maybe the school board was willing to pay in order to keep their dirty littlesecrets covered up Maybe the resident should look deeper into the actions of the schoolboard and the rest of the administration Maybe I am wrong but it seems that the board
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 32 of 77
got called on some issues and now they are attacking one individual to cover theirtracks They seem to be acting like the GREAT WIZARD OF OZ Pay no attention to theidiots behind the curtain we are the all powerful and all knowing school board Pull backthe curtain people because there are people behind there that are faking their waythrough and going to wind up costing the district millions Just saying352011 85642 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagecookmom wroteSchool board President Colleen Kurth said it was much easier to go with a separationagreement than pay more legal fees She compared paying Brazelton to paying ateacher out sick while a substitute fills in The job just has to go on Kurth said I amconfused A teacher out SICK is NOT the same as a HOSTILE work enviorment How cana medical condition be compared to a person being accused of a hostile workenviorment A teacher would be REQUIRED to use their sick days~ since this is beingcompared to an illness ~was Brazelton REQUIRED to give up her sickvacation pay orwas that part of the dealWas she also paid for those days Wouldnt we all love to becollecting a salary from two towns As now she is being paid by Runnemde AND acurrent SCHOOL district where she is currently employed THIS is the waste in ourSchool districts352011 83552 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imageneocon wroteShe is part of the Protected Classes All you need to know is that she is better thanyou so just keep moveing along Nothing to see here352011 81912 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report Abuse
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 33 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 34 of 77
New Jersey Libertarian PartyOpen Government Advocacy Project
John Paff Chairman
PO Box 5424
Somerset NJ 08875-5424
Phone 732-873-1251 - Fax 908-325-0129
Email lpsmcpoboxcom
May 7 2011
Hon Colleen Kurth President and members of the
Runnemede Board of Education
505 W Third Ave
Runnemede NJ 08078 (via e-mail to vcarmodyrunnemedeschoolsorg )
Dear President Kurth and Board members
I write both individually and on behalf the New Jersey Libertarian Partys Open
Government Advocacy Project to comment on 1) the manner in which the Board of Education
goes into nonpublic (ie executive or closed) session and 2) the level of detail contained within
the Boardrsquos executive session minutes
Issue 1 Executive Session resolutions
As you are aware the Senator Byron M Baer Open Public Meetings Act requires public
bodies such as the Runnemede Board of Education to publicly pass a resolution before
excluding the public from a meeting The statute that requires the resolution states
NJSA 104-13mdashClosed meetings resolution to conduct
No public body shall exclude the public from any meeting to discuss any
matter described in subsection 7 b (104-12) until the public body shall
first adopt a resolution at a meeting to which the public shall be admitted
a Stating the general nature of the subject to be discussed and
b Stating as precisely as possible the time when and the circumstances
under which the discussion conducted in closed session of the public body
can be disclosed to the public
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 35 of 77
2
By way of a recent records request I received resolutions which purport to authorize
executive sessions intended to be held by the Board of Education on July 28 2010 (2 sessions)
August 20 2010 February 2 1011 February 23 2011 (2 sessions) and March 2 2011 Those
resolutions which are virtually identical to each other state
Executive Session to discuss student matters personnel contractual and
legal matters [time and a statement as to whether action will be
taken]
[identity of maker of motion etc]
Resolved that pursuant to Section 8 of the Public Meetings Act the public
shall be excluded from that portion of the meeting involving the discussion
of personnel legal and contractual matters Further resolved that
discussion of such subject matters discussed in Executive Session can be
disclosed to public upon official action if any at the conclusion of the
executive session or at a public session at some later date
I dont think that this form of resolution satisfies NJSA 104-13 because it gives the
public no real sense of what is being privately discussed1 To paraphrase the highest court of of
another state a body which only announces ldquolegal mattersrdquo or ldquopersonnel negotiationsrdquo for
going into executive session has said nothing It might has well have stated to the audience
ldquoLadies and gentlemen we are going into executive sessionrdquo and stopped there Hinds County
Board of Supervisors v Common Cause of Mississippi 551 So2d 107 114 (MS 1989)
Of course there can be no dispute that the Board of Education often has legitimate
reasons to meet in nonpublic session Among these reasons is the need to prevent the adverse
parties in litigation or contract negotiations from gaining an unfair advantage and to allow
members of the governing body to debate and deliberate personnel matters without public
scrutiny or participation But the need to discuss matters privately should not prevent the
public from being informed as precisely as possible of the topics that are being privately
discussed
For example suppose that Runnemede Board is being sued by a Mr Jones who was
injured after he slipped and fell on what he claims to be negligently maintained school
property Since the lawsuit is already a public record there is no public purpose served by
vaguely describing a private discussion of it as ldquostudent matters personnel contractual and
legal mattersrdquo Rather the resolution should at the very least describe the private discussion as
1 In January 2007 when I most recently litigated this issue Middlesex County Superior Court Judge Alexander P
Waugh issued a written decision in which he agreed with other court decisions that closed session resolutions
should contain as much information as is consistent with full public knowledge without doing any harm to the
public interest Judge Waughs decision and other case documents are on the Web at
httpogtfarchiveorgOGTFMonroeBOEWebreadypdf
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 36 of 77
3
ldquoDiscussion of slip and fall negligence suit Jones v Runnemede Board Docket No CAM-L-
012345-11rdquo This way the public has a very good sense of what the Boardrsquos private discussion is
about while the ability of the Board to develop its lawsuit strategy is not undermined
Using the same example suppose that Jonesrsquo attorney sent the Boardrsquos attorney an offer
to fully settle the lawsuit upon the Boardrsquos payment of $20000 While the Board would
obviously need to discuss how to respond to the offer in private lest Jones or his attorney
would be in the audience witnessing the discussion there is no reason why the public cannot be
informed in the NJSA 104-13 resolution that the Board will meet in private to discuss ldquoa
settlement offer received from the Plaintiff in the slip and fall negligence suit known as Jones v
Runnemede Board Docket No CAM-L-012345-11 in which the Plaintiff offers to settle the suit
in exchange for the Board paying him $20000rdquo While it may initially seem that this would
provide ldquotoo muchrdquo information to the public this concern disappears once it is realized that
the sole purpose of the exception2 that allows litigation matters to be discussed in private is to
keep the adverse party to the litigation in the dark regarding the Boardrsquos position3 Since in this
example the adverse party (ie Jones) already knows that he offered to settle the lawsuit for
$20000 there is no legitimate reason why the public should not also know of the tendered
settlement offer
As another example suppose that a personnel matter such as whether or not a Mrs
Smith a public works employee should be disciplined because of repeatedly arriving late to
work is to be discussed in closed session In such a case the amount of detail set forth in the
NJSA 104-13 resolution should correspond to the amount of detail that the Board and its
attorney predict will be publicly disclosed in the closed meetingrsquos minutes when those minutes
are made public
The standard that the Board is to use when determining how much information about a
personnel matter is to be disclosed in the closed sessionrsquos minutes is set forth in South Jersey
Publishing Company Inc v New Jersey Expressway Authority 124 NJ 478 (1991) That
standard is that a) the public needs information if it is properly fulfill its role of evaluating the
wisdom of governmental action or a decision not to act b) that New Jerseys strong public
policy requires that a public bodyrsquos actions and decisions to not act be disclosed in the bodys
closed meeting minutes along with sufficient facts and information to permit the public to
understand and appraise the reasonableness of the bodys determination and c) to the extent a
cognizable privacy interest may be compromised by the required disclosure the extent of
disclosure may be modified through redactions of the minutes provided the public interest in
disclosure is not subverted
2 NJSA104-12(b)(7) is to prevent adverse parties to litigation and contracts from learning the details of the
public bodyrsquos negotiation tactics and litigation strategy3 See the discussion in Paff v Washington Township Docket No MER-L-2205-07 and Nevin v Asbury Park City
Board 2005 WL 2847974 (App Div November 1 2005) which are on-line at
httpogtfarchiveorgOGTFWashingtonpdf (Nevin begins at page 44 of the PDF file at the link)
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 37 of 77
4
Thus regardless of whether the Board disciplines Ms Smith or chooses to not impose
discipline due to her lateness the outcome should be recorded in the closed meeting minutes
The question of whether that entry in the minutes should be redacted before the minutes are
made public requires a balancing of Ms Smithrsquos interest in keeping the disciplinary matter
private against the publicrsquos interest in effectively monitoring the Board If the Board with
counselrsquos advice determines after balancing these interests that the outcome will be published
unredacted in the closed sessionrsquos minutes (ie if the minutes will disclose to the public eg that
ldquoMs Smith was suspended for three days on account of her habitual latenessrdquo) then the exact
nature of the matter (ie that ldquothe Board will discuss disciplining Ms Smith for excessive
latenessrdquo) should be set forth in the closed meetingrsquos NJSA 104-13 resolution Inversely if the
Board determines that Ms Smithrsquos privacy interest exceeds the publicrsquos right to know then less
information (eg ldquothe Board will discuss disciplining an employee for excessive latenessrdquo)
should be set forth in the closed meetingrsquos NJSA 104-13 resolution
In other words if the officer or employee being discussed doesnt have a privacy interest
sufficient to withstand a citizens request for the executive session minutes why should not the
public know the topic of the executive session prior to it occurring
Irsquove attached as Exhibit pages 1 -3 is a model resolution that I would like the Board to
use in the future
Issue 2 Executive Session minutes
Attached as Exhibit Page 4 as an example are the Boardrsquos July 28 2010 executive session
minutes It is troubling that a meeting that lasted over an hour is being summed up in a single
sentence ldquoMr Phil Stern addressed the Board of Education about personnel issuesrdquo These
minutes are not ldquoreasonably comprehensiblerdquo as required by NJSA 104-14
The purpose of closed meeting minutes is not merely to inform the public of whatoccurred during the private session but also to create a record for the Board membersthemselves A Board member who is newly elected in 2012 should be able by referringsolely to the minutes to figure out what issues the Board addressed during any previouslyheld closed meeting This hypothetical Board member after reading the July 28 2010closed minutes could not possibly figure out which employees or officials Mr Stern wastalking about
Better practice would be to record closed minutes that are much morecomprehensive but to redact that material that must be shielded from public view Forexample the minutes could have said
Mr Stern addressed the Board of Education about the habitualtardiness of 2nd grade teacher Mary Doe and her propensity to eatlibrary paste and scream hysterically during fire drills Herecommended that she be sent for psychiatric evaluation
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 38 of 77
5
Of course if a member of the public requested these hypothetical minutes the Boardmay need to redact them in order to protect privacy interests The point however is thatregardless of whether unredacted closed meeting minutes are ever released to the publicthey should contain sufficient details so that the Board members themselves can monthsor years later know what was discussed
Attached as Exhibit pages 5 ndash 9 is an order recently entered in Schmidt et al v City of
Gloucester City et al Docket No CAM-L-1287-11 As you can see paraA(3) supports my position
that the Boardrsquos minutes are not ldquoreasonably comprehensiblerdquo as required by law
Conclusion
Since some public bodies do not take my requests for Meetings Act compliance seriously
I regret having to inform the Board that I will sue for declaratory and injunctive relief in
accordance with NJSA 104-16 unless I receive assurances from the Boardmdashwithin a few days
after its May 10 2011 meetingmdashthat it will work in good faith to improve the amount of
information in both its closed session resolutions and minutes If the Boardrsquos agenda is already
set for the May 10 2011 meeting please at least acknowledge this letter and let me know the
date of the meeting at which it will be considered
Thank you very much for your attention to this matter I look forward to hearing from
you
Sincerely
John Paff
cc Philip E Stern Esq w enc (via e-mail to psternasgllawcom )
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 39 of 77
RUNNEMEDE BOARD OF EDUCATIONRESOLUTION NO ___________
AUTHORIZING EXECUTIVE SESSION
WHEREAS while the Sen Byron M Baer Open Public Meetings Act (NJSA 104-6 et seq) requires allmeetings of the Runnemede Board of Education to be held in public NJSA 104-12(b) sets forth nine (9)types of matters that may lawfully be discussed in ldquoExecutive Sessionrdquo ie without the public beingpermitted to attend and
WHEREAS the Runnemede Board of Education has determined that _____ (insert number) issues arepermitted by NJSA 104-12(b) to be discussed without the public in attendance shall be discussed duringan Executive Session to be held on _________________________ 20____ at _______ PM and
WHEREAS the nine (9) exceptions to public meetings set forth in NJSA 104-12(b) are listed below andnext to each exception is a box within which the number of issues to be privately discussed that fall withinthat exception shall be written and after each exception is a space where additional information that willdisclose as much information about the discussion as possible without undermining the purpose of theexception shall be written
ldquo(1) Any matter which by express provision of Federal law State statute or rule of courtshall be rendered confidential or excluded from public discussionrdquo The legal citation to theprovision(s) at issue is__________________________ and the nature of the matter described asspecifically as possible without undermining the need for confidentiality is _______________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(2) Any matter in which the release of information would impair a right to receive fundsfrom the federal governmentrdquo The nature of the matter described as specifically as possiblewithout undermining the need for confidentiality is _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(3) Any material the disclosure of which constitutes an unwarranted invasion of individualprivacy such as any records data reports recommendations or other personal material ofany educational training social service medical health custodial child protectionrehabilitation legal defense welfare housing relocation insurance and similar program orinstitution operated by a public body pertaining to any specific individual admitted to orserved by such institution or program including but not limited to information relative tothe individuals personal and family circumstances and any material pertaining toadmission discharge treatment progress or condition of any individual unless theindividual concerned (or in the case of a minor or incompetent his guardian) shall requestin writing that the same be disclosed publiclyrdquo The nature of the matter described asspecifically as possible without undermining the need for confidentiality is______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(4) Any collective bargaining agreement or the terms and conditions of which are proposedfor inclusion in any collective bargaining agreement including the negotiation of terms andconditions with employees or representatives of employees of the public bodyrdquo The collectivebargaining contract(s) discussed are between the Board and ____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Exhibit Page 1Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 40 of 77
ldquo(5) Any matter involving the purchase lease or acquisition of real property with publicfunds the setting of bank rates or investment of public funds where it could adversely affectthe public interest if discussion of such matters were disclosedrdquo The nature of the matterdescribed as specifically as possible without undermining the need for confidentiality is____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(6) Any tactics and techniques utilized in protecting the safety and property of the publicprovided that their disclosure could impair such protection Any investigations of violationsor possible violations of the lawrdquo The nature of the matter described as specifically as possiblewithout undermining the need for confidentiality is ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(7) Any pending or anticipated litigation or contract negotiation in which the public body isor may become a party Any matters falling within the attorney-client privilege to the extentthat confidentiality is required in order for the attorney to exercise his ethicalduties as a lawyerrdquo The parties to and docket numbers of each item of litigation andor theparties to each contract discussed are __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ andnature of the discussion described as specifically as possible without undermining the need forconfidentiality is ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(8) Any matter involving the employment appointment termination of employment termsand conditions of employment evaluation of the performance promotion or disciplining ofany specific prospective public officer or employee or current public officer or employeeemployed or appointed by the public body unless all individual employees or appointees whoserights could be adversely affected request in writing that such matter or matters be discussed ata public meetingrdquo Subject to the balancing of the publicrsquos interest and the employeersquos privacyrights under South Jersey Publishing Co v New Jersey Expressway Authority 124 NJ 478 theemployee(s) and nature of the discussion described as specifically as possible withoutundermining the need for confidentiality are _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(9) Any deliberation of a public body occurring after a public hearing that may result in theimposition of a specific civil penalty upon the responding party or the suspension or loss of alicense or permit belonging to the responding party as a result of an act of omission forwhich the responding party bears responsibilityrdquo The nature of the matter described asspecifically as possible without undermining the need for confidentiality is______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
WHEREAS the length of the Executive Session is estimated to be ________ minutes after which the publicmeeting of the Board shall (circle one) reconvene and immediately adjourn or reconvene and proceed withbusiness
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Runnemede Board of Education will go into ExecutiveSession for only the above stated reasons
Exhibit Page 2Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 41 of 77
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board hereby declares that its discussion of the aforementionedsubject(s) will be made public at a time when the publicrsquos interest in disclosure is greater than any privacy orgovernmental interest being protected from disclosure For each of the above items the estimated date bywhich such disclosure can be made andor the occurrence that needs to take place before disclosure can bemade are listed below (attach separate sheet if necessary)
Subject of Discussion Estimated Date Necessary Occurrence
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Clerk at the present public meeting shall read aloud enough ofthis resolution so that members of the public in attendance can understand as precisely as possible thenature of the matters that will privately discussed
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Clerk on the next business day following this meeting shallfurnish a copy of this resolution to any member of the public who requests one at the fees allowed byNJSA 471A-1 et seq
_________________________________Board President
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS ATRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTIONAPPROVED BY THE RUNNEMEDE BOARD OF EDUCATION AT ITSPUBLIC MEETING HELD ON ______________________20___
_______________________________________Board Secretary
Exhibit Page 3Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 42 of 77
Exhibit Page 4Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 43 of 77
Exhibit Page 5Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 44 of 77
Exhibit Page 6Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 45 of 77
Exhibit Page 7Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 46 of 77
Exhibit Page 8Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 47 of 77
Exhibit Page 9Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 48 of 77
Subject Records RequestFrom John Paff ltpaffpoboxcomgtDate Sat 07 May 2011 161444 -0400To vcarmodyrunnemedeschoolsorgCC psternasgllawcom
Ms Carmody
Please accept this e-mail as my request for government records inaccordance with the Open Public Records Act (OPRA) and the commonlaw right of access Please respond and send all responsivedocuments to me via e-mail at paffpoboxcom If e-mail is notpossible please fax responses and responsive records to me at908-325-0129 Also I would appreciate it if you wouldacknowledge your receipt of this e-mail
Background
In response to a records request I recently received redactedexecutive session minutes for the following dates July 28 2010(first session) August 26 2010 February 2 2011 February 232011 (two sessions) and March 2 2011 Although Mr Stern providedme with a sheet entitled Documents Exempt From OPRA request thatpurports to explain these redactions I am still unclear as to whythe matter was redacted and whether it was lawfully redacted
First I dont understand references such as NJSA 471A-11(12)(c) The version of OPRA that I have (plus every other oneIve seen) does not have internal numbers within NJSA471A-11 Am I correct that NJSA 471A-11(12)(c) isintended to refer to the exemption for records in connection withcollective negotiations including documents and statements ofstrategy or negotiating position and that NJSA 471A-11(7)is intended to refer to any record within the attorney-clientprivilege This paragraph shall not be construed as exempting fromaccess attorney or consultant bills or invoices except that suchbills or invoices may be redacted to remove any informationprotected by the attorney-client privilege Please advise
Second even if I correctly corresponded the claimed exemptions tothe OPRA statute I have no way of knowing whether the mattersredacted are actually exempt from access When a custodiansuppresses any portion of any requested record NJSA471A-5(g) requires him or her to state the ldquospecific basisrdquo foreach suppressed element Beyond stating the ldquospecific basisrdquo foreach suppressed element he or she is required to ldquoproduce
Records Request
1 of 2 622011 810 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 49 of 77
specific reliable evidence sufficient to meet a statutorilyrecognized basis for confidentialityrdquo Courier News v HunterdonCounty Prosecutorrsquos Office 358 NJ Super 373 382-83 (App Div2003) Further he or she must explain each suppression in amanner that ldquowill enable other parties to assess the applicabilityof the privilege or protectionrdquo Paff v New Jersey Department ofLabor Board of Review 379 NJ Super 346 354-55 (2005)(quoting R 410-2(e))
Records requested
Runnemede Board of Education minutes for the following dates July28 2010 (728 pm session only) August 26 2010 February 22011 February 23 2011 (both sessions) and March 2 2011 Iwould like these minutes redacted as narrowly as possible if atall For each redaction I request a written explanation thatmeets the requirements of the case law cited above
cc Phil Stern
Records Request
2 of 2 622011 810 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 50 of 77
Subject Re Fwd Runnemede Board of Education Open PublicMeetings ActFrom John Paff ltpaffpoboxcomgtDate Mon 09 May 2011 134726 -0400To Nancy Ward ltnwardrunnemedeschoolsorggt
Thank you
On 592011 116 PM Nancy Ward wrote
Mr Paff
The Board has named me Custodian of Records Please direct allfuturecommunication to me The May 10 2011 meeting is theRe-organization ofthe Runnemede Board of Education The agenda is set and is verycomprehensive I intend to defer the letter and any discussionregardingits content to the next regular meeting the date of which willbe setat the re-organization tomorrow night In keeping with thedistrictsmeeting pattern that will be May 25 2011
Nancy BWard EdD
Superintendent of Schools
-----Original Message-----From John PaffSent 572011 42300 PMTo nwardrunnemedeschoolsorgCc vcarmodyrunnemedeschoolsorg psternasgllawcomSubject Fwd Runnemede Board of Education Open Public MeetingsAct
Here is another e-mail in case my original one should have beendirected to Ms Ward and not Ms Carmody
JP
-------- Original Message --------Subject Runnemede Board of Education Open Public Meetings ActDate Sat 07 May 2011 152319 -0400From John Paff
Re Fwd Runnemede Board of Education Open Public Meetings Act
1 of 2 622011 811 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 51 of 77
Reply-To paffpoboxcomTo vcarmodyrunnemedeschoolsorg psternasgllawcom
Ms Carmody and Mr Stern
Attached is a letter that I would like the Board to consider atits May10 2011 meeting Would you please a) acknowledge receipt of theletterand b) distribute it to all the Board members
Note that the last paragraph of the letter indicates that I willfilesuit against the Board if the issues in the letter arentaddressedSo if the Boards agenda for the May 10th meeting is so tightthat myletter cannot be accommodated please advise me of such andprovide ameeting date where my letter will be addressed so that I knowthat I amnot being ignored
Thank you
John Paff ChairmanNew Jersey Libertarian PartysOpen Government Advocacy Project
Re Fwd Runnemede Board of Education Open Public Meetings Act
2 of 2 622011 811 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 52 of 77
Subject OPRA RequestFrom Philip Stern ltpsternasgllawcomgtDate Fri 20 May 2011 161015 -0500To paffpoboxcom ltpaffpoboxcomgtCC Nancy Ward ltnwardrunnemedeschoolsorggt
Mr Paff please find attached to this email a response to your request forbusiness records Please note that in providing you with the attachedrecords the Runnemede Borough Board of Education waives no rightsregarding the attorney-client privilege Do not hesitate to call me if youhave any questions Phil Stern
Philip E SternAdams Stern Gutierrez amp Lattiboudere LLCThe Legal Center1037 Raymond Blvd Suite 710Newark New Jersey 07102(973) 735-2742 (office telephone)(201) 914-2415 (cellular telephone)(973) 735-2743 (office telefax)
May 20 Paff responsepdf
Content-DescriptionMay 20 Paffresponsepdf
Content-Type applicationpdf
Content-Encoding base64
OPRA Request
1 of 1 622011 815 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 53 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 54 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 55 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 56 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 57 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 58 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 59 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 60 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 61 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 62 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 63 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 64 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 65 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 66 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 67 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 68 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 69 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 70 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 71 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 72 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 73 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 74 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 75 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 76 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 77 of 77
- Civil Complaint
- Exhibits
-
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 17 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 18 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 19 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 20 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 21 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 22 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 23 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 24 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 25 of 77
Idled officials payout riles Runnemede
By BARBARA S ROTHSCHILD bull Courier-Post Staff bull March 5 2011
RUNNEMEDE mdash Although the school district is paying Business Administrator Kelly PetersBrazelton her full salary to stay home while paying for an interim employee RunnemedeSuperintendent Nancy Ward said it could have cost more not to have a separationagreement
New Jersey is a very litigious state she said In order to avoid litigation which neveris a good thing a separation agreement gives you a certain outcome
Brazelton a Deptford resident and the former business administrator for the SomerdalePublic School District began working for Runnemede schools in August 2008 Her mostrecent contract for July 1 2010 through June 30 is for $99465 plus benefits
But the relationship soured and the district would not comment on specifics citingconfidentiality
A letter from staff members written to Ward and the school board in July 2010 gaveexamples of a hostile work environment that they said was created by the businessadministrator
Brazelton could not be reached Her attorney Joseph Betley of Mount Laurel said hisclient signed the separation agreement in good faith
There was a disagreement between the board and Kelly he said It was resolved andboth sides decided to move on
She disputes any and all allegations regarding a hostile work environment It wassimply Kelly doing her job
The separation agreement and release dated Oct 20 stipulates Brazelton be placed ona paid leave of absence from Sept 23 to April 15 at which time she would irrevocablyresign
School board President Colleen Kurth said it was much easier to go with a separationagreement than pay more legal fees
She compared paying Brazelton to paying a teacher out sick while a substitute fills in
The job just has to go on Kurth said
Interim Business Administrator Valerie Carmody who retired from the same post in EastGreenwich last year was hired Dec 1 at $60 per hour 24 hours maximum per weekHer contract ends June 30
New Jersey School Boards Association spokesman Mike Yaple said such separationagreements are infrequent
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 26 of 77
No school board willingly enters into an agreement like this he insisted But eventhough its not a popular decision its the lesser of two evils
Residents unhappy about the districts handling of the situation include Dan Conard ajournalism student at Rowan University Conard writes a blog where he discusses schooldistrict and municipal matters To comment on this topic he filed Open Public RecordsAct (OPRA) document requests
I just wanted to get it out there so people know what is going on Conard said
Ward said she has no quarrel with the student but believes Brazeltons case is anunusual circumstance
It (the separation agreement) was the most responsible thing the district could havedone she insisted Was it a bitter pill to swallow It took the board (a while) beforethey felt it was something they could do but it makes the most sense
Ward said the part-time arrangement with Carmody is working out well and that as thedistrict improves efficiency it is unlikely another full-time business administrator will behired particularly when Executive County Superintendent Peggy Nicolosi has advisedagainst it
Among the options being considered are another part-time business administrator or ashared-service agreement with another district
Ward said she would have preferred the money being expended in this case be spent oneducational programs and teachers particularly this year
Although voters passed Runnemedes 2010-11 budget while many others were defeatedlast April the district of 853 students in K-8 lost six staffers and streamlined its gifted-and-talented program after state aid was cut
Ward also defended the decision to keep a maintenance techniciansupervisor positioncreated in 2008 noting it has saved at least $145000 each year
Mark Speck of Voorhees earns $50000 in the post Through June 2010 it was filled byDoug McGarry a former building and grounds supervisor in the Somerdale district Heearned $60000 in Runnemede but had more experience than Speck Ward said
Before Brazelton arrived in Runnemede the business administrator also served asmaintenance supervisor Ward said that actually cost the district more because it had topay outside maintenance workers sometimes for faulty work
Many things had been done to the facilities that were not to the boards satisfactionshe said That first year with our own maintenance person we saved $145000 becausewe hired a person who fixed things
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 27 of 77
Speck works with vendors going over bids and quotes and also does minor repairs thatno longer have to be paid for piecemeal Ward said the position is staying in the 2011-2012 budget adopted preliminarily on Wednesday
Hes the guy whos here at 4 am making sure weve got snow plows when we needthem Ward said Hes dirty and sweaty -- and hes excellent
Ward said the budget sent to the county includes a $78 annual tax increase for theowner of a home assessed at the $97800 borough average but does not cut staff orprograms
Kurth hopes to tweak the budget and lower the tax hike before it is introduced to thepublic on March 23 But she agreed the maintenance supervisor will stay
That was an investment on the part of the school district Kurth said
Reach Barbara S Rothschild at (856) 486-2416 or barothschildcamdengannettcom
--Comments
User Imageamonkeycoulddoit wroteThe mayor cant hear you because she doesnt even know how to turn on a computerNot that it was a requirement that the mayor should know how to use one I think theonly requirement is that they have a pulse And she does but barely372011 12406 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imageamonkeycoulddoit wroteTo sickofpolsnj it does seem that snoopysam has some inside information And whenyou say hows that mayors race looking I hope that you dont mean that someone fromthe disfunctional school board is going to run for mayor or council or some other electedposition considering the mess that they made on the school board372011 11832 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imageamonkeycoulddoit wroteIf the school board president had listened to staff when the hostil work enviroment issuestarted then she might not be in this pickle She should have spent the money on thelegal fees because if everything is true about the hostile enviroment then they wouldhave won the lawsuit hands down and not had to pay out anything and gotten their legalfees back Another example of elected officials not capable of doing the job they are inLets hope that some people come out of the woodwork to run for school board peoplewho care about the kids and the taxpayers372011 11309 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imageamonkeycoulddoit wrote
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 28 of 77
The school boad is not as inept as the mayor and council You dont have to be a collegegraduate or or even be able to read or write to get an elected position in runnemedeThe 2 new council members got elected because the are involved in the union andeveryone who supports the union came out to vote And the new mayor must have a lotof friends But now after the few months they have been in office it is clear to see thatthey are not able to handle the job Mayor14 is right that the people of Runnemedevoted because they thought they would get something in return for their vote but itlooks like they were wrong In the upcoming elections for school board and council votefor the person who will do the best job whether you like them or not Dont just vote forsomeone because you are told to372011 10214 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagethemayor14 wrotei am so glad this article was written and it clearly points out how inept the runnemedeboard of education actually is the board of education is not elected based on businessand education talent the elections are nothing more than a popularity contest i dontknow how other towns operate but runnemede boro is a total joke when it come toelections be it school board or general elections i wish everyone would get their headsout of their A$$ and truly investigate the school board canidates that are running forelection VOTE WITH YOUR HEAD NOT WITH YOUR HEART362011 91350 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagesavetheschools wroteSeveral people are running for the board for four open seats I signed a petition todayfor a new woman running Members are not paid If you live in Runnemede shopstewardyou have until Tuesday to get a petition submitted I asked and found out there is only 5people on average at the BOE meetings every month in Runnemede I hope more peoplestart to go I plan on it myself And we all need to go every month not just when weread negative press about our schools That is the only way we would all stay informedand not rely on the young man submitting OPRA requests Our town has always beenabout the kids and it needs to get back that way362011 80936 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser ImageShopsteward wroteWhy did it take one young man sending in OPRA requests to bring all this to lightWhy are you relying upon him to get to the bottom of it You say The other members(except for the one who was just arrested and resigned) are good people and didnothing wrong to the district and that might be true except for the fact that theyallowed that incredible salary and benefits to be given out and even though all kinds ofrumors were flying around it took an outsider with OPRA requests to bring this ghastlypimple to a head Sounds more like none of them are doing their jobs and should be outof office and off the payroll They should all just resign They arent doing the job thatwas assigned to them362011 32559 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Image
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 29 of 77
Shopsteward wroteA crime was committed here It began with a violation of the Publics trust by the peoplewho allowed this contract to be signed in the first place What a jokeHow many moreof these jobs are hidden in the budgets of our Schools There needs to be a thouroughcleaning of all thses tyeps of employees everywhere At the State County Municipaland Scool board level and the appointed Authorities too Everyone screams about theUnions but whenever you hear of some great big abuse it turns out the person wasnteven in the UnionClean up this mess first Mr Christie before yougo after the little guys It will save us all a lot more money362011 101606 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser ImageShopsteward wroteI still dont get itHow is a part time24 hr a week job worth so much This is aprime example of the waste that is giving the public workers a bad nameThe onlyproblem is it isnt some Union personIts management and its the same all over This isjust the tip of the iceberg they scream about the Unions but the real waste is in jobs likethis oneNo way this job or the thousands of others like it should be paid so well99465 PLUS BENEFITS incrediblethere should be a lawandthe person gets a pension based on that bloated salarytooThere should be other people losing their jobs not for theseperation aggreement but for letting this evenhappen352011 101125 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagethesplits wroteI guess this is Runnemedes version of a shared service352011 73450 PM
User Imagethesplits wroteLooks like its the same old Runnemede and I thought we voted for change Mayor352011 73202 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagesavetheschools wroteFrom what I understand and I live in town the board went into this separationagreement because the BA would have had a potential lawsuit and it would have costthe school district and tax payers a ton of money Much more than they are spendingnow And yes it is one school board member who was apparently corrupt Just one Theyoung man who was mentioned in the article has been OPRA requesting items and willget to the bottom of this situation with the former BA and the certain board memberBut that is just one person The other members (except for the one who was justarrested and resigned) are good people and did nothing wrong to the district Thisformer BA and her friend who was hired as the maint supervisor have been a hot topicfor a few years Ask the employees they were awful and needed to go It is awful thatthis money was not spent on our children It was a trainwreck from the beginning and ifI recall correctly when the hiring took place only one of the members voted no and that
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 30 of 77
was the local high school teacher metioned in another post Runnemede schools arefantastic and maybe the new people running for election will get some answers andmake some changes And maybe the BOE member who was mentioned by employees asbeing the reason why there could be a possible lawsuit should just resign I understandadmin make good money but they also need to be accountable for their actions and ifthe BA made a hostile environment and was supported by one BOE member both shouldbe gonenot just the BA352011 33207 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagecookmom wroteWhere is Gov Christies veto power352011 30321 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagecookmom wroteThis all happened with a local police officer and a FOP member and local high schoolteacher and member of the NJEA on the board The Runnemede Board is looking alotlike the DRPA and was this group picked by the new Mayor352011 30042 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagesickofpolsnj wroteThe real truth is the Board of Education member and Brazelton and the unethicalsituation that THEY created The questionable contracts and underhanded deals There isa certain Board Member that hopes that this ends here well it doesnt There is not aTeacher or employee in Runnemede Schools that would defend Brazelton same goes forSomerdale And many are willing to bring out MANY of the things that Brazelton did todestroy the district The ENTIRE Runnemede School Community is thrilled that Brazeltonis gone Snoopysam is clearly one of two people Kelly or the Board Member shouldwe name names Hows that Mayors race looking352011 114254 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser ImageShopsteward wrote$99465 plus benefits How much does she pay for her share of those benefitsor are they free to her Her replacement only works 24 hours a week are we being toldthat she got that much money for a part time job What is the matter with theidiots that hired her to begin withNo one should get that kind of money for a part timeThat is an awful lot of money for that kind of job We should not be surprised at all Thiskind of thing is everywhere in Camden CountyIts the NORMAL way of doingbusiness352011 113922 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagelookfar111 wroteYep same old story hire someone for $98000 when 10 equally qualified people woulddo it for 60k with a 20 year top out at 75 k Then a sweetheart adios gift And the cherry
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 31 of 77
on top Another tax increase for the people God I hate what the democrat machinehave done to this once great state352011 111649 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser ImageSnoopysam wrotesickofpolsnj you must be on ot those employees that Brazelton held accountable forHER actions You are right there is so much more to this story and when the real truthscome out there will be some emplopyeesadministratorsboard members hanging theirheads in shame Talk about wasting taxpayer dollars take a look at some of the lazyincompetent employees that Brazelton had to deal withand their HUGE mistakes thathad to be corrected which cost the taxpayers thousands upon thousands of dollars352011 94250 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagesickofpolsnj wroteYou are exactly correct A teacher would never get a sweatheart deal like this I wonderwhich Board Member it was that was mentioned in that letter Did you read the blog thatthis all came out on it has way more details than this articlehttpdansviewrunnemedewordpresscom352011 92934 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagesickofpolsnj wroteOnly thing is Runnemede never had these issues Somerdale had the same EXACT issueswith Brazelton Administrators arent allowed to comment however talk to the teachersand employees off record they will tell you all about Kelly352011 92726 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagesickofpolsnj wroteThere is so much more to this story I hope the CP will run a follow up 1 Look into therealtionship and hiring surrounding Doug the maintenance supervisor 2 Check intoBrazeltons past employment Somerdale Schools 3 Brazelton is rumored to be hired atthe completion of the settlement in Deptford 4 Look into unethical practices between aBoard Member and Brazelton 5 And what about the other Board member that wasrecently charged with a serious crime352011 92315 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imageicallbullschit wroteOnce again the government tries to pin their mistakes on an individual when they screwup royally What the paper fails to report is the other side Maybe years and years ofmismanagement and patronage were uncovered and it became a hostile environmentwhen people got called on their actions and the same old routine was stopped Maybethe school board realized it would be cheaper to pay one than to pay many for theirmistakes Maybe the school board was willing to pay in order to keep their dirty littlesecrets covered up Maybe the resident should look deeper into the actions of the schoolboard and the rest of the administration Maybe I am wrong but it seems that the board
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 32 of 77
got called on some issues and now they are attacking one individual to cover theirtracks They seem to be acting like the GREAT WIZARD OF OZ Pay no attention to theidiots behind the curtain we are the all powerful and all knowing school board Pull backthe curtain people because there are people behind there that are faking their waythrough and going to wind up costing the district millions Just saying352011 85642 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagecookmom wroteSchool board President Colleen Kurth said it was much easier to go with a separationagreement than pay more legal fees She compared paying Brazelton to paying ateacher out sick while a substitute fills in The job just has to go on Kurth said I amconfused A teacher out SICK is NOT the same as a HOSTILE work enviorment How cana medical condition be compared to a person being accused of a hostile workenviorment A teacher would be REQUIRED to use their sick days~ since this is beingcompared to an illness ~was Brazelton REQUIRED to give up her sickvacation pay orwas that part of the dealWas she also paid for those days Wouldnt we all love to becollecting a salary from two towns As now she is being paid by Runnemde AND acurrent SCHOOL district where she is currently employed THIS is the waste in ourSchool districts352011 83552 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imageneocon wroteShe is part of the Protected Classes All you need to know is that she is better thanyou so just keep moveing along Nothing to see here352011 81912 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report Abuse
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 33 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 34 of 77
New Jersey Libertarian PartyOpen Government Advocacy Project
John Paff Chairman
PO Box 5424
Somerset NJ 08875-5424
Phone 732-873-1251 - Fax 908-325-0129
Email lpsmcpoboxcom
May 7 2011
Hon Colleen Kurth President and members of the
Runnemede Board of Education
505 W Third Ave
Runnemede NJ 08078 (via e-mail to vcarmodyrunnemedeschoolsorg )
Dear President Kurth and Board members
I write both individually and on behalf the New Jersey Libertarian Partys Open
Government Advocacy Project to comment on 1) the manner in which the Board of Education
goes into nonpublic (ie executive or closed) session and 2) the level of detail contained within
the Boardrsquos executive session minutes
Issue 1 Executive Session resolutions
As you are aware the Senator Byron M Baer Open Public Meetings Act requires public
bodies such as the Runnemede Board of Education to publicly pass a resolution before
excluding the public from a meeting The statute that requires the resolution states
NJSA 104-13mdashClosed meetings resolution to conduct
No public body shall exclude the public from any meeting to discuss any
matter described in subsection 7 b (104-12) until the public body shall
first adopt a resolution at a meeting to which the public shall be admitted
a Stating the general nature of the subject to be discussed and
b Stating as precisely as possible the time when and the circumstances
under which the discussion conducted in closed session of the public body
can be disclosed to the public
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 35 of 77
2
By way of a recent records request I received resolutions which purport to authorize
executive sessions intended to be held by the Board of Education on July 28 2010 (2 sessions)
August 20 2010 February 2 1011 February 23 2011 (2 sessions) and March 2 2011 Those
resolutions which are virtually identical to each other state
Executive Session to discuss student matters personnel contractual and
legal matters [time and a statement as to whether action will be
taken]
[identity of maker of motion etc]
Resolved that pursuant to Section 8 of the Public Meetings Act the public
shall be excluded from that portion of the meeting involving the discussion
of personnel legal and contractual matters Further resolved that
discussion of such subject matters discussed in Executive Session can be
disclosed to public upon official action if any at the conclusion of the
executive session or at a public session at some later date
I dont think that this form of resolution satisfies NJSA 104-13 because it gives the
public no real sense of what is being privately discussed1 To paraphrase the highest court of of
another state a body which only announces ldquolegal mattersrdquo or ldquopersonnel negotiationsrdquo for
going into executive session has said nothing It might has well have stated to the audience
ldquoLadies and gentlemen we are going into executive sessionrdquo and stopped there Hinds County
Board of Supervisors v Common Cause of Mississippi 551 So2d 107 114 (MS 1989)
Of course there can be no dispute that the Board of Education often has legitimate
reasons to meet in nonpublic session Among these reasons is the need to prevent the adverse
parties in litigation or contract negotiations from gaining an unfair advantage and to allow
members of the governing body to debate and deliberate personnel matters without public
scrutiny or participation But the need to discuss matters privately should not prevent the
public from being informed as precisely as possible of the topics that are being privately
discussed
For example suppose that Runnemede Board is being sued by a Mr Jones who was
injured after he slipped and fell on what he claims to be negligently maintained school
property Since the lawsuit is already a public record there is no public purpose served by
vaguely describing a private discussion of it as ldquostudent matters personnel contractual and
legal mattersrdquo Rather the resolution should at the very least describe the private discussion as
1 In January 2007 when I most recently litigated this issue Middlesex County Superior Court Judge Alexander P
Waugh issued a written decision in which he agreed with other court decisions that closed session resolutions
should contain as much information as is consistent with full public knowledge without doing any harm to the
public interest Judge Waughs decision and other case documents are on the Web at
httpogtfarchiveorgOGTFMonroeBOEWebreadypdf
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 36 of 77
3
ldquoDiscussion of slip and fall negligence suit Jones v Runnemede Board Docket No CAM-L-
012345-11rdquo This way the public has a very good sense of what the Boardrsquos private discussion is
about while the ability of the Board to develop its lawsuit strategy is not undermined
Using the same example suppose that Jonesrsquo attorney sent the Boardrsquos attorney an offer
to fully settle the lawsuit upon the Boardrsquos payment of $20000 While the Board would
obviously need to discuss how to respond to the offer in private lest Jones or his attorney
would be in the audience witnessing the discussion there is no reason why the public cannot be
informed in the NJSA 104-13 resolution that the Board will meet in private to discuss ldquoa
settlement offer received from the Plaintiff in the slip and fall negligence suit known as Jones v
Runnemede Board Docket No CAM-L-012345-11 in which the Plaintiff offers to settle the suit
in exchange for the Board paying him $20000rdquo While it may initially seem that this would
provide ldquotoo muchrdquo information to the public this concern disappears once it is realized that
the sole purpose of the exception2 that allows litigation matters to be discussed in private is to
keep the adverse party to the litigation in the dark regarding the Boardrsquos position3 Since in this
example the adverse party (ie Jones) already knows that he offered to settle the lawsuit for
$20000 there is no legitimate reason why the public should not also know of the tendered
settlement offer
As another example suppose that a personnel matter such as whether or not a Mrs
Smith a public works employee should be disciplined because of repeatedly arriving late to
work is to be discussed in closed session In such a case the amount of detail set forth in the
NJSA 104-13 resolution should correspond to the amount of detail that the Board and its
attorney predict will be publicly disclosed in the closed meetingrsquos minutes when those minutes
are made public
The standard that the Board is to use when determining how much information about a
personnel matter is to be disclosed in the closed sessionrsquos minutes is set forth in South Jersey
Publishing Company Inc v New Jersey Expressway Authority 124 NJ 478 (1991) That
standard is that a) the public needs information if it is properly fulfill its role of evaluating the
wisdom of governmental action or a decision not to act b) that New Jerseys strong public
policy requires that a public bodyrsquos actions and decisions to not act be disclosed in the bodys
closed meeting minutes along with sufficient facts and information to permit the public to
understand and appraise the reasonableness of the bodys determination and c) to the extent a
cognizable privacy interest may be compromised by the required disclosure the extent of
disclosure may be modified through redactions of the minutes provided the public interest in
disclosure is not subverted
2 NJSA104-12(b)(7) is to prevent adverse parties to litigation and contracts from learning the details of the
public bodyrsquos negotiation tactics and litigation strategy3 See the discussion in Paff v Washington Township Docket No MER-L-2205-07 and Nevin v Asbury Park City
Board 2005 WL 2847974 (App Div November 1 2005) which are on-line at
httpogtfarchiveorgOGTFWashingtonpdf (Nevin begins at page 44 of the PDF file at the link)
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 37 of 77
4
Thus regardless of whether the Board disciplines Ms Smith or chooses to not impose
discipline due to her lateness the outcome should be recorded in the closed meeting minutes
The question of whether that entry in the minutes should be redacted before the minutes are
made public requires a balancing of Ms Smithrsquos interest in keeping the disciplinary matter
private against the publicrsquos interest in effectively monitoring the Board If the Board with
counselrsquos advice determines after balancing these interests that the outcome will be published
unredacted in the closed sessionrsquos minutes (ie if the minutes will disclose to the public eg that
ldquoMs Smith was suspended for three days on account of her habitual latenessrdquo) then the exact
nature of the matter (ie that ldquothe Board will discuss disciplining Ms Smith for excessive
latenessrdquo) should be set forth in the closed meetingrsquos NJSA 104-13 resolution Inversely if the
Board determines that Ms Smithrsquos privacy interest exceeds the publicrsquos right to know then less
information (eg ldquothe Board will discuss disciplining an employee for excessive latenessrdquo)
should be set forth in the closed meetingrsquos NJSA 104-13 resolution
In other words if the officer or employee being discussed doesnt have a privacy interest
sufficient to withstand a citizens request for the executive session minutes why should not the
public know the topic of the executive session prior to it occurring
Irsquove attached as Exhibit pages 1 -3 is a model resolution that I would like the Board to
use in the future
Issue 2 Executive Session minutes
Attached as Exhibit Page 4 as an example are the Boardrsquos July 28 2010 executive session
minutes It is troubling that a meeting that lasted over an hour is being summed up in a single
sentence ldquoMr Phil Stern addressed the Board of Education about personnel issuesrdquo These
minutes are not ldquoreasonably comprehensiblerdquo as required by NJSA 104-14
The purpose of closed meeting minutes is not merely to inform the public of whatoccurred during the private session but also to create a record for the Board membersthemselves A Board member who is newly elected in 2012 should be able by referringsolely to the minutes to figure out what issues the Board addressed during any previouslyheld closed meeting This hypothetical Board member after reading the July 28 2010closed minutes could not possibly figure out which employees or officials Mr Stern wastalking about
Better practice would be to record closed minutes that are much morecomprehensive but to redact that material that must be shielded from public view Forexample the minutes could have said
Mr Stern addressed the Board of Education about the habitualtardiness of 2nd grade teacher Mary Doe and her propensity to eatlibrary paste and scream hysterically during fire drills Herecommended that she be sent for psychiatric evaluation
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 38 of 77
5
Of course if a member of the public requested these hypothetical minutes the Boardmay need to redact them in order to protect privacy interests The point however is thatregardless of whether unredacted closed meeting minutes are ever released to the publicthey should contain sufficient details so that the Board members themselves can monthsor years later know what was discussed
Attached as Exhibit pages 5 ndash 9 is an order recently entered in Schmidt et al v City of
Gloucester City et al Docket No CAM-L-1287-11 As you can see paraA(3) supports my position
that the Boardrsquos minutes are not ldquoreasonably comprehensiblerdquo as required by law
Conclusion
Since some public bodies do not take my requests for Meetings Act compliance seriously
I regret having to inform the Board that I will sue for declaratory and injunctive relief in
accordance with NJSA 104-16 unless I receive assurances from the Boardmdashwithin a few days
after its May 10 2011 meetingmdashthat it will work in good faith to improve the amount of
information in both its closed session resolutions and minutes If the Boardrsquos agenda is already
set for the May 10 2011 meeting please at least acknowledge this letter and let me know the
date of the meeting at which it will be considered
Thank you very much for your attention to this matter I look forward to hearing from
you
Sincerely
John Paff
cc Philip E Stern Esq w enc (via e-mail to psternasgllawcom )
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 39 of 77
RUNNEMEDE BOARD OF EDUCATIONRESOLUTION NO ___________
AUTHORIZING EXECUTIVE SESSION
WHEREAS while the Sen Byron M Baer Open Public Meetings Act (NJSA 104-6 et seq) requires allmeetings of the Runnemede Board of Education to be held in public NJSA 104-12(b) sets forth nine (9)types of matters that may lawfully be discussed in ldquoExecutive Sessionrdquo ie without the public beingpermitted to attend and
WHEREAS the Runnemede Board of Education has determined that _____ (insert number) issues arepermitted by NJSA 104-12(b) to be discussed without the public in attendance shall be discussed duringan Executive Session to be held on _________________________ 20____ at _______ PM and
WHEREAS the nine (9) exceptions to public meetings set forth in NJSA 104-12(b) are listed below andnext to each exception is a box within which the number of issues to be privately discussed that fall withinthat exception shall be written and after each exception is a space where additional information that willdisclose as much information about the discussion as possible without undermining the purpose of theexception shall be written
ldquo(1) Any matter which by express provision of Federal law State statute or rule of courtshall be rendered confidential or excluded from public discussionrdquo The legal citation to theprovision(s) at issue is__________________________ and the nature of the matter described asspecifically as possible without undermining the need for confidentiality is _______________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(2) Any matter in which the release of information would impair a right to receive fundsfrom the federal governmentrdquo The nature of the matter described as specifically as possiblewithout undermining the need for confidentiality is _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(3) Any material the disclosure of which constitutes an unwarranted invasion of individualprivacy such as any records data reports recommendations or other personal material ofany educational training social service medical health custodial child protectionrehabilitation legal defense welfare housing relocation insurance and similar program orinstitution operated by a public body pertaining to any specific individual admitted to orserved by such institution or program including but not limited to information relative tothe individuals personal and family circumstances and any material pertaining toadmission discharge treatment progress or condition of any individual unless theindividual concerned (or in the case of a minor or incompetent his guardian) shall requestin writing that the same be disclosed publiclyrdquo The nature of the matter described asspecifically as possible without undermining the need for confidentiality is______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(4) Any collective bargaining agreement or the terms and conditions of which are proposedfor inclusion in any collective bargaining agreement including the negotiation of terms andconditions with employees or representatives of employees of the public bodyrdquo The collectivebargaining contract(s) discussed are between the Board and ____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Exhibit Page 1Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 40 of 77
ldquo(5) Any matter involving the purchase lease or acquisition of real property with publicfunds the setting of bank rates or investment of public funds where it could adversely affectthe public interest if discussion of such matters were disclosedrdquo The nature of the matterdescribed as specifically as possible without undermining the need for confidentiality is____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(6) Any tactics and techniques utilized in protecting the safety and property of the publicprovided that their disclosure could impair such protection Any investigations of violationsor possible violations of the lawrdquo The nature of the matter described as specifically as possiblewithout undermining the need for confidentiality is ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(7) Any pending or anticipated litigation or contract negotiation in which the public body isor may become a party Any matters falling within the attorney-client privilege to the extentthat confidentiality is required in order for the attorney to exercise his ethicalduties as a lawyerrdquo The parties to and docket numbers of each item of litigation andor theparties to each contract discussed are __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ andnature of the discussion described as specifically as possible without undermining the need forconfidentiality is ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(8) Any matter involving the employment appointment termination of employment termsand conditions of employment evaluation of the performance promotion or disciplining ofany specific prospective public officer or employee or current public officer or employeeemployed or appointed by the public body unless all individual employees or appointees whoserights could be adversely affected request in writing that such matter or matters be discussed ata public meetingrdquo Subject to the balancing of the publicrsquos interest and the employeersquos privacyrights under South Jersey Publishing Co v New Jersey Expressway Authority 124 NJ 478 theemployee(s) and nature of the discussion described as specifically as possible withoutundermining the need for confidentiality are _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(9) Any deliberation of a public body occurring after a public hearing that may result in theimposition of a specific civil penalty upon the responding party or the suspension or loss of alicense or permit belonging to the responding party as a result of an act of omission forwhich the responding party bears responsibilityrdquo The nature of the matter described asspecifically as possible without undermining the need for confidentiality is______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
WHEREAS the length of the Executive Session is estimated to be ________ minutes after which the publicmeeting of the Board shall (circle one) reconvene and immediately adjourn or reconvene and proceed withbusiness
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Runnemede Board of Education will go into ExecutiveSession for only the above stated reasons
Exhibit Page 2Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 41 of 77
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board hereby declares that its discussion of the aforementionedsubject(s) will be made public at a time when the publicrsquos interest in disclosure is greater than any privacy orgovernmental interest being protected from disclosure For each of the above items the estimated date bywhich such disclosure can be made andor the occurrence that needs to take place before disclosure can bemade are listed below (attach separate sheet if necessary)
Subject of Discussion Estimated Date Necessary Occurrence
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Clerk at the present public meeting shall read aloud enough ofthis resolution so that members of the public in attendance can understand as precisely as possible thenature of the matters that will privately discussed
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Clerk on the next business day following this meeting shallfurnish a copy of this resolution to any member of the public who requests one at the fees allowed byNJSA 471A-1 et seq
_________________________________Board President
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS ATRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTIONAPPROVED BY THE RUNNEMEDE BOARD OF EDUCATION AT ITSPUBLIC MEETING HELD ON ______________________20___
_______________________________________Board Secretary
Exhibit Page 3Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 42 of 77
Exhibit Page 4Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 43 of 77
Exhibit Page 5Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 44 of 77
Exhibit Page 6Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 45 of 77
Exhibit Page 7Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 46 of 77
Exhibit Page 8Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 47 of 77
Exhibit Page 9Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 48 of 77
Subject Records RequestFrom John Paff ltpaffpoboxcomgtDate Sat 07 May 2011 161444 -0400To vcarmodyrunnemedeschoolsorgCC psternasgllawcom
Ms Carmody
Please accept this e-mail as my request for government records inaccordance with the Open Public Records Act (OPRA) and the commonlaw right of access Please respond and send all responsivedocuments to me via e-mail at paffpoboxcom If e-mail is notpossible please fax responses and responsive records to me at908-325-0129 Also I would appreciate it if you wouldacknowledge your receipt of this e-mail
Background
In response to a records request I recently received redactedexecutive session minutes for the following dates July 28 2010(first session) August 26 2010 February 2 2011 February 232011 (two sessions) and March 2 2011 Although Mr Stern providedme with a sheet entitled Documents Exempt From OPRA request thatpurports to explain these redactions I am still unclear as to whythe matter was redacted and whether it was lawfully redacted
First I dont understand references such as NJSA 471A-11(12)(c) The version of OPRA that I have (plus every other oneIve seen) does not have internal numbers within NJSA471A-11 Am I correct that NJSA 471A-11(12)(c) isintended to refer to the exemption for records in connection withcollective negotiations including documents and statements ofstrategy or negotiating position and that NJSA 471A-11(7)is intended to refer to any record within the attorney-clientprivilege This paragraph shall not be construed as exempting fromaccess attorney or consultant bills or invoices except that suchbills or invoices may be redacted to remove any informationprotected by the attorney-client privilege Please advise
Second even if I correctly corresponded the claimed exemptions tothe OPRA statute I have no way of knowing whether the mattersredacted are actually exempt from access When a custodiansuppresses any portion of any requested record NJSA471A-5(g) requires him or her to state the ldquospecific basisrdquo foreach suppressed element Beyond stating the ldquospecific basisrdquo foreach suppressed element he or she is required to ldquoproduce
Records Request
1 of 2 622011 810 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 49 of 77
specific reliable evidence sufficient to meet a statutorilyrecognized basis for confidentialityrdquo Courier News v HunterdonCounty Prosecutorrsquos Office 358 NJ Super 373 382-83 (App Div2003) Further he or she must explain each suppression in amanner that ldquowill enable other parties to assess the applicabilityof the privilege or protectionrdquo Paff v New Jersey Department ofLabor Board of Review 379 NJ Super 346 354-55 (2005)(quoting R 410-2(e))
Records requested
Runnemede Board of Education minutes for the following dates July28 2010 (728 pm session only) August 26 2010 February 22011 February 23 2011 (both sessions) and March 2 2011 Iwould like these minutes redacted as narrowly as possible if atall For each redaction I request a written explanation thatmeets the requirements of the case law cited above
cc Phil Stern
Records Request
2 of 2 622011 810 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 50 of 77
Subject Re Fwd Runnemede Board of Education Open PublicMeetings ActFrom John Paff ltpaffpoboxcomgtDate Mon 09 May 2011 134726 -0400To Nancy Ward ltnwardrunnemedeschoolsorggt
Thank you
On 592011 116 PM Nancy Ward wrote
Mr Paff
The Board has named me Custodian of Records Please direct allfuturecommunication to me The May 10 2011 meeting is theRe-organization ofthe Runnemede Board of Education The agenda is set and is verycomprehensive I intend to defer the letter and any discussionregardingits content to the next regular meeting the date of which willbe setat the re-organization tomorrow night In keeping with thedistrictsmeeting pattern that will be May 25 2011
Nancy BWard EdD
Superintendent of Schools
-----Original Message-----From John PaffSent 572011 42300 PMTo nwardrunnemedeschoolsorgCc vcarmodyrunnemedeschoolsorg psternasgllawcomSubject Fwd Runnemede Board of Education Open Public MeetingsAct
Here is another e-mail in case my original one should have beendirected to Ms Ward and not Ms Carmody
JP
-------- Original Message --------Subject Runnemede Board of Education Open Public Meetings ActDate Sat 07 May 2011 152319 -0400From John Paff
Re Fwd Runnemede Board of Education Open Public Meetings Act
1 of 2 622011 811 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 51 of 77
Reply-To paffpoboxcomTo vcarmodyrunnemedeschoolsorg psternasgllawcom
Ms Carmody and Mr Stern
Attached is a letter that I would like the Board to consider atits May10 2011 meeting Would you please a) acknowledge receipt of theletterand b) distribute it to all the Board members
Note that the last paragraph of the letter indicates that I willfilesuit against the Board if the issues in the letter arentaddressedSo if the Boards agenda for the May 10th meeting is so tightthat myletter cannot be accommodated please advise me of such andprovide ameeting date where my letter will be addressed so that I knowthat I amnot being ignored
Thank you
John Paff ChairmanNew Jersey Libertarian PartysOpen Government Advocacy Project
Re Fwd Runnemede Board of Education Open Public Meetings Act
2 of 2 622011 811 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 52 of 77
Subject OPRA RequestFrom Philip Stern ltpsternasgllawcomgtDate Fri 20 May 2011 161015 -0500To paffpoboxcom ltpaffpoboxcomgtCC Nancy Ward ltnwardrunnemedeschoolsorggt
Mr Paff please find attached to this email a response to your request forbusiness records Please note that in providing you with the attachedrecords the Runnemede Borough Board of Education waives no rightsregarding the attorney-client privilege Do not hesitate to call me if youhave any questions Phil Stern
Philip E SternAdams Stern Gutierrez amp Lattiboudere LLCThe Legal Center1037 Raymond Blvd Suite 710Newark New Jersey 07102(973) 735-2742 (office telephone)(201) 914-2415 (cellular telephone)(973) 735-2743 (office telefax)
May 20 Paff responsepdf
Content-DescriptionMay 20 Paffresponsepdf
Content-Type applicationpdf
Content-Encoding base64
OPRA Request
1 of 1 622011 815 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 53 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 54 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 55 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 56 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 57 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 58 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 59 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 60 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 61 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 62 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 63 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 64 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 65 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 66 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 67 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 68 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 69 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 70 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 71 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 72 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 73 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 74 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 75 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 76 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 77 of 77
- Civil Complaint
- Exhibits
-
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 18 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 19 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 20 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 21 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 22 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 23 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 24 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 25 of 77
Idled officials payout riles Runnemede
By BARBARA S ROTHSCHILD bull Courier-Post Staff bull March 5 2011
RUNNEMEDE mdash Although the school district is paying Business Administrator Kelly PetersBrazelton her full salary to stay home while paying for an interim employee RunnemedeSuperintendent Nancy Ward said it could have cost more not to have a separationagreement
New Jersey is a very litigious state she said In order to avoid litigation which neveris a good thing a separation agreement gives you a certain outcome
Brazelton a Deptford resident and the former business administrator for the SomerdalePublic School District began working for Runnemede schools in August 2008 Her mostrecent contract for July 1 2010 through June 30 is for $99465 plus benefits
But the relationship soured and the district would not comment on specifics citingconfidentiality
A letter from staff members written to Ward and the school board in July 2010 gaveexamples of a hostile work environment that they said was created by the businessadministrator
Brazelton could not be reached Her attorney Joseph Betley of Mount Laurel said hisclient signed the separation agreement in good faith
There was a disagreement between the board and Kelly he said It was resolved andboth sides decided to move on
She disputes any and all allegations regarding a hostile work environment It wassimply Kelly doing her job
The separation agreement and release dated Oct 20 stipulates Brazelton be placed ona paid leave of absence from Sept 23 to April 15 at which time she would irrevocablyresign
School board President Colleen Kurth said it was much easier to go with a separationagreement than pay more legal fees
She compared paying Brazelton to paying a teacher out sick while a substitute fills in
The job just has to go on Kurth said
Interim Business Administrator Valerie Carmody who retired from the same post in EastGreenwich last year was hired Dec 1 at $60 per hour 24 hours maximum per weekHer contract ends June 30
New Jersey School Boards Association spokesman Mike Yaple said such separationagreements are infrequent
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 26 of 77
No school board willingly enters into an agreement like this he insisted But eventhough its not a popular decision its the lesser of two evils
Residents unhappy about the districts handling of the situation include Dan Conard ajournalism student at Rowan University Conard writes a blog where he discusses schooldistrict and municipal matters To comment on this topic he filed Open Public RecordsAct (OPRA) document requests
I just wanted to get it out there so people know what is going on Conard said
Ward said she has no quarrel with the student but believes Brazeltons case is anunusual circumstance
It (the separation agreement) was the most responsible thing the district could havedone she insisted Was it a bitter pill to swallow It took the board (a while) beforethey felt it was something they could do but it makes the most sense
Ward said the part-time arrangement with Carmody is working out well and that as thedistrict improves efficiency it is unlikely another full-time business administrator will behired particularly when Executive County Superintendent Peggy Nicolosi has advisedagainst it
Among the options being considered are another part-time business administrator or ashared-service agreement with another district
Ward said she would have preferred the money being expended in this case be spent oneducational programs and teachers particularly this year
Although voters passed Runnemedes 2010-11 budget while many others were defeatedlast April the district of 853 students in K-8 lost six staffers and streamlined its gifted-and-talented program after state aid was cut
Ward also defended the decision to keep a maintenance techniciansupervisor positioncreated in 2008 noting it has saved at least $145000 each year
Mark Speck of Voorhees earns $50000 in the post Through June 2010 it was filled byDoug McGarry a former building and grounds supervisor in the Somerdale district Heearned $60000 in Runnemede but had more experience than Speck Ward said
Before Brazelton arrived in Runnemede the business administrator also served asmaintenance supervisor Ward said that actually cost the district more because it had topay outside maintenance workers sometimes for faulty work
Many things had been done to the facilities that were not to the boards satisfactionshe said That first year with our own maintenance person we saved $145000 becausewe hired a person who fixed things
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 27 of 77
Speck works with vendors going over bids and quotes and also does minor repairs thatno longer have to be paid for piecemeal Ward said the position is staying in the 2011-2012 budget adopted preliminarily on Wednesday
Hes the guy whos here at 4 am making sure weve got snow plows when we needthem Ward said Hes dirty and sweaty -- and hes excellent
Ward said the budget sent to the county includes a $78 annual tax increase for theowner of a home assessed at the $97800 borough average but does not cut staff orprograms
Kurth hopes to tweak the budget and lower the tax hike before it is introduced to thepublic on March 23 But she agreed the maintenance supervisor will stay
That was an investment on the part of the school district Kurth said
Reach Barbara S Rothschild at (856) 486-2416 or barothschildcamdengannettcom
--Comments
User Imageamonkeycoulddoit wroteThe mayor cant hear you because she doesnt even know how to turn on a computerNot that it was a requirement that the mayor should know how to use one I think theonly requirement is that they have a pulse And she does but barely372011 12406 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imageamonkeycoulddoit wroteTo sickofpolsnj it does seem that snoopysam has some inside information And whenyou say hows that mayors race looking I hope that you dont mean that someone fromthe disfunctional school board is going to run for mayor or council or some other electedposition considering the mess that they made on the school board372011 11832 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imageamonkeycoulddoit wroteIf the school board president had listened to staff when the hostil work enviroment issuestarted then she might not be in this pickle She should have spent the money on thelegal fees because if everything is true about the hostile enviroment then they wouldhave won the lawsuit hands down and not had to pay out anything and gotten their legalfees back Another example of elected officials not capable of doing the job they are inLets hope that some people come out of the woodwork to run for school board peoplewho care about the kids and the taxpayers372011 11309 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imageamonkeycoulddoit wrote
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 28 of 77
The school boad is not as inept as the mayor and council You dont have to be a collegegraduate or or even be able to read or write to get an elected position in runnemedeThe 2 new council members got elected because the are involved in the union andeveryone who supports the union came out to vote And the new mayor must have a lotof friends But now after the few months they have been in office it is clear to see thatthey are not able to handle the job Mayor14 is right that the people of Runnemedevoted because they thought they would get something in return for their vote but itlooks like they were wrong In the upcoming elections for school board and council votefor the person who will do the best job whether you like them or not Dont just vote forsomeone because you are told to372011 10214 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagethemayor14 wrotei am so glad this article was written and it clearly points out how inept the runnemedeboard of education actually is the board of education is not elected based on businessand education talent the elections are nothing more than a popularity contest i dontknow how other towns operate but runnemede boro is a total joke when it come toelections be it school board or general elections i wish everyone would get their headsout of their A$$ and truly investigate the school board canidates that are running forelection VOTE WITH YOUR HEAD NOT WITH YOUR HEART362011 91350 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagesavetheschools wroteSeveral people are running for the board for four open seats I signed a petition todayfor a new woman running Members are not paid If you live in Runnemede shopstewardyou have until Tuesday to get a petition submitted I asked and found out there is only 5people on average at the BOE meetings every month in Runnemede I hope more peoplestart to go I plan on it myself And we all need to go every month not just when weread negative press about our schools That is the only way we would all stay informedand not rely on the young man submitting OPRA requests Our town has always beenabout the kids and it needs to get back that way362011 80936 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser ImageShopsteward wroteWhy did it take one young man sending in OPRA requests to bring all this to lightWhy are you relying upon him to get to the bottom of it You say The other members(except for the one who was just arrested and resigned) are good people and didnothing wrong to the district and that might be true except for the fact that theyallowed that incredible salary and benefits to be given out and even though all kinds ofrumors were flying around it took an outsider with OPRA requests to bring this ghastlypimple to a head Sounds more like none of them are doing their jobs and should be outof office and off the payroll They should all just resign They arent doing the job thatwas assigned to them362011 32559 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Image
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 29 of 77
Shopsteward wroteA crime was committed here It began with a violation of the Publics trust by the peoplewho allowed this contract to be signed in the first place What a jokeHow many moreof these jobs are hidden in the budgets of our Schools There needs to be a thouroughcleaning of all thses tyeps of employees everywhere At the State County Municipaland Scool board level and the appointed Authorities too Everyone screams about theUnions but whenever you hear of some great big abuse it turns out the person wasnteven in the UnionClean up this mess first Mr Christie before yougo after the little guys It will save us all a lot more money362011 101606 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser ImageShopsteward wroteI still dont get itHow is a part time24 hr a week job worth so much This is aprime example of the waste that is giving the public workers a bad nameThe onlyproblem is it isnt some Union personIts management and its the same all over This isjust the tip of the iceberg they scream about the Unions but the real waste is in jobs likethis oneNo way this job or the thousands of others like it should be paid so well99465 PLUS BENEFITS incrediblethere should be a lawandthe person gets a pension based on that bloated salarytooThere should be other people losing their jobs not for theseperation aggreement but for letting this evenhappen352011 101125 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagethesplits wroteI guess this is Runnemedes version of a shared service352011 73450 PM
User Imagethesplits wroteLooks like its the same old Runnemede and I thought we voted for change Mayor352011 73202 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagesavetheschools wroteFrom what I understand and I live in town the board went into this separationagreement because the BA would have had a potential lawsuit and it would have costthe school district and tax payers a ton of money Much more than they are spendingnow And yes it is one school board member who was apparently corrupt Just one Theyoung man who was mentioned in the article has been OPRA requesting items and willget to the bottom of this situation with the former BA and the certain board memberBut that is just one person The other members (except for the one who was justarrested and resigned) are good people and did nothing wrong to the district Thisformer BA and her friend who was hired as the maint supervisor have been a hot topicfor a few years Ask the employees they were awful and needed to go It is awful thatthis money was not spent on our children It was a trainwreck from the beginning and ifI recall correctly when the hiring took place only one of the members voted no and that
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 30 of 77
was the local high school teacher metioned in another post Runnemede schools arefantastic and maybe the new people running for election will get some answers andmake some changes And maybe the BOE member who was mentioned by employees asbeing the reason why there could be a possible lawsuit should just resign I understandadmin make good money but they also need to be accountable for their actions and ifthe BA made a hostile environment and was supported by one BOE member both shouldbe gonenot just the BA352011 33207 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagecookmom wroteWhere is Gov Christies veto power352011 30321 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagecookmom wroteThis all happened with a local police officer and a FOP member and local high schoolteacher and member of the NJEA on the board The Runnemede Board is looking alotlike the DRPA and was this group picked by the new Mayor352011 30042 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagesickofpolsnj wroteThe real truth is the Board of Education member and Brazelton and the unethicalsituation that THEY created The questionable contracts and underhanded deals There isa certain Board Member that hopes that this ends here well it doesnt There is not aTeacher or employee in Runnemede Schools that would defend Brazelton same goes forSomerdale And many are willing to bring out MANY of the things that Brazelton did todestroy the district The ENTIRE Runnemede School Community is thrilled that Brazeltonis gone Snoopysam is clearly one of two people Kelly or the Board Member shouldwe name names Hows that Mayors race looking352011 114254 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser ImageShopsteward wrote$99465 plus benefits How much does she pay for her share of those benefitsor are they free to her Her replacement only works 24 hours a week are we being toldthat she got that much money for a part time job What is the matter with theidiots that hired her to begin withNo one should get that kind of money for a part timeThat is an awful lot of money for that kind of job We should not be surprised at all Thiskind of thing is everywhere in Camden CountyIts the NORMAL way of doingbusiness352011 113922 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagelookfar111 wroteYep same old story hire someone for $98000 when 10 equally qualified people woulddo it for 60k with a 20 year top out at 75 k Then a sweetheart adios gift And the cherry
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 31 of 77
on top Another tax increase for the people God I hate what the democrat machinehave done to this once great state352011 111649 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser ImageSnoopysam wrotesickofpolsnj you must be on ot those employees that Brazelton held accountable forHER actions You are right there is so much more to this story and when the real truthscome out there will be some emplopyeesadministratorsboard members hanging theirheads in shame Talk about wasting taxpayer dollars take a look at some of the lazyincompetent employees that Brazelton had to deal withand their HUGE mistakes thathad to be corrected which cost the taxpayers thousands upon thousands of dollars352011 94250 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagesickofpolsnj wroteYou are exactly correct A teacher would never get a sweatheart deal like this I wonderwhich Board Member it was that was mentioned in that letter Did you read the blog thatthis all came out on it has way more details than this articlehttpdansviewrunnemedewordpresscom352011 92934 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagesickofpolsnj wroteOnly thing is Runnemede never had these issues Somerdale had the same EXACT issueswith Brazelton Administrators arent allowed to comment however talk to the teachersand employees off record they will tell you all about Kelly352011 92726 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagesickofpolsnj wroteThere is so much more to this story I hope the CP will run a follow up 1 Look into therealtionship and hiring surrounding Doug the maintenance supervisor 2 Check intoBrazeltons past employment Somerdale Schools 3 Brazelton is rumored to be hired atthe completion of the settlement in Deptford 4 Look into unethical practices between aBoard Member and Brazelton 5 And what about the other Board member that wasrecently charged with a serious crime352011 92315 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imageicallbullschit wroteOnce again the government tries to pin their mistakes on an individual when they screwup royally What the paper fails to report is the other side Maybe years and years ofmismanagement and patronage were uncovered and it became a hostile environmentwhen people got called on their actions and the same old routine was stopped Maybethe school board realized it would be cheaper to pay one than to pay many for theirmistakes Maybe the school board was willing to pay in order to keep their dirty littlesecrets covered up Maybe the resident should look deeper into the actions of the schoolboard and the rest of the administration Maybe I am wrong but it seems that the board
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 32 of 77
got called on some issues and now they are attacking one individual to cover theirtracks They seem to be acting like the GREAT WIZARD OF OZ Pay no attention to theidiots behind the curtain we are the all powerful and all knowing school board Pull backthe curtain people because there are people behind there that are faking their waythrough and going to wind up costing the district millions Just saying352011 85642 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagecookmom wroteSchool board President Colleen Kurth said it was much easier to go with a separationagreement than pay more legal fees She compared paying Brazelton to paying ateacher out sick while a substitute fills in The job just has to go on Kurth said I amconfused A teacher out SICK is NOT the same as a HOSTILE work enviorment How cana medical condition be compared to a person being accused of a hostile workenviorment A teacher would be REQUIRED to use their sick days~ since this is beingcompared to an illness ~was Brazelton REQUIRED to give up her sickvacation pay orwas that part of the dealWas she also paid for those days Wouldnt we all love to becollecting a salary from two towns As now she is being paid by Runnemde AND acurrent SCHOOL district where she is currently employed THIS is the waste in ourSchool districts352011 83552 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imageneocon wroteShe is part of the Protected Classes All you need to know is that she is better thanyou so just keep moveing along Nothing to see here352011 81912 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report Abuse
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 33 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 34 of 77
New Jersey Libertarian PartyOpen Government Advocacy Project
John Paff Chairman
PO Box 5424
Somerset NJ 08875-5424
Phone 732-873-1251 - Fax 908-325-0129
Email lpsmcpoboxcom
May 7 2011
Hon Colleen Kurth President and members of the
Runnemede Board of Education
505 W Third Ave
Runnemede NJ 08078 (via e-mail to vcarmodyrunnemedeschoolsorg )
Dear President Kurth and Board members
I write both individually and on behalf the New Jersey Libertarian Partys Open
Government Advocacy Project to comment on 1) the manner in which the Board of Education
goes into nonpublic (ie executive or closed) session and 2) the level of detail contained within
the Boardrsquos executive session minutes
Issue 1 Executive Session resolutions
As you are aware the Senator Byron M Baer Open Public Meetings Act requires public
bodies such as the Runnemede Board of Education to publicly pass a resolution before
excluding the public from a meeting The statute that requires the resolution states
NJSA 104-13mdashClosed meetings resolution to conduct
No public body shall exclude the public from any meeting to discuss any
matter described in subsection 7 b (104-12) until the public body shall
first adopt a resolution at a meeting to which the public shall be admitted
a Stating the general nature of the subject to be discussed and
b Stating as precisely as possible the time when and the circumstances
under which the discussion conducted in closed session of the public body
can be disclosed to the public
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 35 of 77
2
By way of a recent records request I received resolutions which purport to authorize
executive sessions intended to be held by the Board of Education on July 28 2010 (2 sessions)
August 20 2010 February 2 1011 February 23 2011 (2 sessions) and March 2 2011 Those
resolutions which are virtually identical to each other state
Executive Session to discuss student matters personnel contractual and
legal matters [time and a statement as to whether action will be
taken]
[identity of maker of motion etc]
Resolved that pursuant to Section 8 of the Public Meetings Act the public
shall be excluded from that portion of the meeting involving the discussion
of personnel legal and contractual matters Further resolved that
discussion of such subject matters discussed in Executive Session can be
disclosed to public upon official action if any at the conclusion of the
executive session or at a public session at some later date
I dont think that this form of resolution satisfies NJSA 104-13 because it gives the
public no real sense of what is being privately discussed1 To paraphrase the highest court of of
another state a body which only announces ldquolegal mattersrdquo or ldquopersonnel negotiationsrdquo for
going into executive session has said nothing It might has well have stated to the audience
ldquoLadies and gentlemen we are going into executive sessionrdquo and stopped there Hinds County
Board of Supervisors v Common Cause of Mississippi 551 So2d 107 114 (MS 1989)
Of course there can be no dispute that the Board of Education often has legitimate
reasons to meet in nonpublic session Among these reasons is the need to prevent the adverse
parties in litigation or contract negotiations from gaining an unfair advantage and to allow
members of the governing body to debate and deliberate personnel matters without public
scrutiny or participation But the need to discuss matters privately should not prevent the
public from being informed as precisely as possible of the topics that are being privately
discussed
For example suppose that Runnemede Board is being sued by a Mr Jones who was
injured after he slipped and fell on what he claims to be negligently maintained school
property Since the lawsuit is already a public record there is no public purpose served by
vaguely describing a private discussion of it as ldquostudent matters personnel contractual and
legal mattersrdquo Rather the resolution should at the very least describe the private discussion as
1 In January 2007 when I most recently litigated this issue Middlesex County Superior Court Judge Alexander P
Waugh issued a written decision in which he agreed with other court decisions that closed session resolutions
should contain as much information as is consistent with full public knowledge without doing any harm to the
public interest Judge Waughs decision and other case documents are on the Web at
httpogtfarchiveorgOGTFMonroeBOEWebreadypdf
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 36 of 77
3
ldquoDiscussion of slip and fall negligence suit Jones v Runnemede Board Docket No CAM-L-
012345-11rdquo This way the public has a very good sense of what the Boardrsquos private discussion is
about while the ability of the Board to develop its lawsuit strategy is not undermined
Using the same example suppose that Jonesrsquo attorney sent the Boardrsquos attorney an offer
to fully settle the lawsuit upon the Boardrsquos payment of $20000 While the Board would
obviously need to discuss how to respond to the offer in private lest Jones or his attorney
would be in the audience witnessing the discussion there is no reason why the public cannot be
informed in the NJSA 104-13 resolution that the Board will meet in private to discuss ldquoa
settlement offer received from the Plaintiff in the slip and fall negligence suit known as Jones v
Runnemede Board Docket No CAM-L-012345-11 in which the Plaintiff offers to settle the suit
in exchange for the Board paying him $20000rdquo While it may initially seem that this would
provide ldquotoo muchrdquo information to the public this concern disappears once it is realized that
the sole purpose of the exception2 that allows litigation matters to be discussed in private is to
keep the adverse party to the litigation in the dark regarding the Boardrsquos position3 Since in this
example the adverse party (ie Jones) already knows that he offered to settle the lawsuit for
$20000 there is no legitimate reason why the public should not also know of the tendered
settlement offer
As another example suppose that a personnel matter such as whether or not a Mrs
Smith a public works employee should be disciplined because of repeatedly arriving late to
work is to be discussed in closed session In such a case the amount of detail set forth in the
NJSA 104-13 resolution should correspond to the amount of detail that the Board and its
attorney predict will be publicly disclosed in the closed meetingrsquos minutes when those minutes
are made public
The standard that the Board is to use when determining how much information about a
personnel matter is to be disclosed in the closed sessionrsquos minutes is set forth in South Jersey
Publishing Company Inc v New Jersey Expressway Authority 124 NJ 478 (1991) That
standard is that a) the public needs information if it is properly fulfill its role of evaluating the
wisdom of governmental action or a decision not to act b) that New Jerseys strong public
policy requires that a public bodyrsquos actions and decisions to not act be disclosed in the bodys
closed meeting minutes along with sufficient facts and information to permit the public to
understand and appraise the reasonableness of the bodys determination and c) to the extent a
cognizable privacy interest may be compromised by the required disclosure the extent of
disclosure may be modified through redactions of the minutes provided the public interest in
disclosure is not subverted
2 NJSA104-12(b)(7) is to prevent adverse parties to litigation and contracts from learning the details of the
public bodyrsquos negotiation tactics and litigation strategy3 See the discussion in Paff v Washington Township Docket No MER-L-2205-07 and Nevin v Asbury Park City
Board 2005 WL 2847974 (App Div November 1 2005) which are on-line at
httpogtfarchiveorgOGTFWashingtonpdf (Nevin begins at page 44 of the PDF file at the link)
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 37 of 77
4
Thus regardless of whether the Board disciplines Ms Smith or chooses to not impose
discipline due to her lateness the outcome should be recorded in the closed meeting minutes
The question of whether that entry in the minutes should be redacted before the minutes are
made public requires a balancing of Ms Smithrsquos interest in keeping the disciplinary matter
private against the publicrsquos interest in effectively monitoring the Board If the Board with
counselrsquos advice determines after balancing these interests that the outcome will be published
unredacted in the closed sessionrsquos minutes (ie if the minutes will disclose to the public eg that
ldquoMs Smith was suspended for three days on account of her habitual latenessrdquo) then the exact
nature of the matter (ie that ldquothe Board will discuss disciplining Ms Smith for excessive
latenessrdquo) should be set forth in the closed meetingrsquos NJSA 104-13 resolution Inversely if the
Board determines that Ms Smithrsquos privacy interest exceeds the publicrsquos right to know then less
information (eg ldquothe Board will discuss disciplining an employee for excessive latenessrdquo)
should be set forth in the closed meetingrsquos NJSA 104-13 resolution
In other words if the officer or employee being discussed doesnt have a privacy interest
sufficient to withstand a citizens request for the executive session minutes why should not the
public know the topic of the executive session prior to it occurring
Irsquove attached as Exhibit pages 1 -3 is a model resolution that I would like the Board to
use in the future
Issue 2 Executive Session minutes
Attached as Exhibit Page 4 as an example are the Boardrsquos July 28 2010 executive session
minutes It is troubling that a meeting that lasted over an hour is being summed up in a single
sentence ldquoMr Phil Stern addressed the Board of Education about personnel issuesrdquo These
minutes are not ldquoreasonably comprehensiblerdquo as required by NJSA 104-14
The purpose of closed meeting minutes is not merely to inform the public of whatoccurred during the private session but also to create a record for the Board membersthemselves A Board member who is newly elected in 2012 should be able by referringsolely to the minutes to figure out what issues the Board addressed during any previouslyheld closed meeting This hypothetical Board member after reading the July 28 2010closed minutes could not possibly figure out which employees or officials Mr Stern wastalking about
Better practice would be to record closed minutes that are much morecomprehensive but to redact that material that must be shielded from public view Forexample the minutes could have said
Mr Stern addressed the Board of Education about the habitualtardiness of 2nd grade teacher Mary Doe and her propensity to eatlibrary paste and scream hysterically during fire drills Herecommended that she be sent for psychiatric evaluation
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 38 of 77
5
Of course if a member of the public requested these hypothetical minutes the Boardmay need to redact them in order to protect privacy interests The point however is thatregardless of whether unredacted closed meeting minutes are ever released to the publicthey should contain sufficient details so that the Board members themselves can monthsor years later know what was discussed
Attached as Exhibit pages 5 ndash 9 is an order recently entered in Schmidt et al v City of
Gloucester City et al Docket No CAM-L-1287-11 As you can see paraA(3) supports my position
that the Boardrsquos minutes are not ldquoreasonably comprehensiblerdquo as required by law
Conclusion
Since some public bodies do not take my requests for Meetings Act compliance seriously
I regret having to inform the Board that I will sue for declaratory and injunctive relief in
accordance with NJSA 104-16 unless I receive assurances from the Boardmdashwithin a few days
after its May 10 2011 meetingmdashthat it will work in good faith to improve the amount of
information in both its closed session resolutions and minutes If the Boardrsquos agenda is already
set for the May 10 2011 meeting please at least acknowledge this letter and let me know the
date of the meeting at which it will be considered
Thank you very much for your attention to this matter I look forward to hearing from
you
Sincerely
John Paff
cc Philip E Stern Esq w enc (via e-mail to psternasgllawcom )
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 39 of 77
RUNNEMEDE BOARD OF EDUCATIONRESOLUTION NO ___________
AUTHORIZING EXECUTIVE SESSION
WHEREAS while the Sen Byron M Baer Open Public Meetings Act (NJSA 104-6 et seq) requires allmeetings of the Runnemede Board of Education to be held in public NJSA 104-12(b) sets forth nine (9)types of matters that may lawfully be discussed in ldquoExecutive Sessionrdquo ie without the public beingpermitted to attend and
WHEREAS the Runnemede Board of Education has determined that _____ (insert number) issues arepermitted by NJSA 104-12(b) to be discussed without the public in attendance shall be discussed duringan Executive Session to be held on _________________________ 20____ at _______ PM and
WHEREAS the nine (9) exceptions to public meetings set forth in NJSA 104-12(b) are listed below andnext to each exception is a box within which the number of issues to be privately discussed that fall withinthat exception shall be written and after each exception is a space where additional information that willdisclose as much information about the discussion as possible without undermining the purpose of theexception shall be written
ldquo(1) Any matter which by express provision of Federal law State statute or rule of courtshall be rendered confidential or excluded from public discussionrdquo The legal citation to theprovision(s) at issue is__________________________ and the nature of the matter described asspecifically as possible without undermining the need for confidentiality is _______________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(2) Any matter in which the release of information would impair a right to receive fundsfrom the federal governmentrdquo The nature of the matter described as specifically as possiblewithout undermining the need for confidentiality is _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(3) Any material the disclosure of which constitutes an unwarranted invasion of individualprivacy such as any records data reports recommendations or other personal material ofany educational training social service medical health custodial child protectionrehabilitation legal defense welfare housing relocation insurance and similar program orinstitution operated by a public body pertaining to any specific individual admitted to orserved by such institution or program including but not limited to information relative tothe individuals personal and family circumstances and any material pertaining toadmission discharge treatment progress or condition of any individual unless theindividual concerned (or in the case of a minor or incompetent his guardian) shall requestin writing that the same be disclosed publiclyrdquo The nature of the matter described asspecifically as possible without undermining the need for confidentiality is______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(4) Any collective bargaining agreement or the terms and conditions of which are proposedfor inclusion in any collective bargaining agreement including the negotiation of terms andconditions with employees or representatives of employees of the public bodyrdquo The collectivebargaining contract(s) discussed are between the Board and ____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Exhibit Page 1Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 40 of 77
ldquo(5) Any matter involving the purchase lease or acquisition of real property with publicfunds the setting of bank rates or investment of public funds where it could adversely affectthe public interest if discussion of such matters were disclosedrdquo The nature of the matterdescribed as specifically as possible without undermining the need for confidentiality is____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(6) Any tactics and techniques utilized in protecting the safety and property of the publicprovided that their disclosure could impair such protection Any investigations of violationsor possible violations of the lawrdquo The nature of the matter described as specifically as possiblewithout undermining the need for confidentiality is ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(7) Any pending or anticipated litigation or contract negotiation in which the public body isor may become a party Any matters falling within the attorney-client privilege to the extentthat confidentiality is required in order for the attorney to exercise his ethicalduties as a lawyerrdquo The parties to and docket numbers of each item of litigation andor theparties to each contract discussed are __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ andnature of the discussion described as specifically as possible without undermining the need forconfidentiality is ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(8) Any matter involving the employment appointment termination of employment termsand conditions of employment evaluation of the performance promotion or disciplining ofany specific prospective public officer or employee or current public officer or employeeemployed or appointed by the public body unless all individual employees or appointees whoserights could be adversely affected request in writing that such matter or matters be discussed ata public meetingrdquo Subject to the balancing of the publicrsquos interest and the employeersquos privacyrights under South Jersey Publishing Co v New Jersey Expressway Authority 124 NJ 478 theemployee(s) and nature of the discussion described as specifically as possible withoutundermining the need for confidentiality are _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(9) Any deliberation of a public body occurring after a public hearing that may result in theimposition of a specific civil penalty upon the responding party or the suspension or loss of alicense or permit belonging to the responding party as a result of an act of omission forwhich the responding party bears responsibilityrdquo The nature of the matter described asspecifically as possible without undermining the need for confidentiality is______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
WHEREAS the length of the Executive Session is estimated to be ________ minutes after which the publicmeeting of the Board shall (circle one) reconvene and immediately adjourn or reconvene and proceed withbusiness
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Runnemede Board of Education will go into ExecutiveSession for only the above stated reasons
Exhibit Page 2Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 41 of 77
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board hereby declares that its discussion of the aforementionedsubject(s) will be made public at a time when the publicrsquos interest in disclosure is greater than any privacy orgovernmental interest being protected from disclosure For each of the above items the estimated date bywhich such disclosure can be made andor the occurrence that needs to take place before disclosure can bemade are listed below (attach separate sheet if necessary)
Subject of Discussion Estimated Date Necessary Occurrence
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Clerk at the present public meeting shall read aloud enough ofthis resolution so that members of the public in attendance can understand as precisely as possible thenature of the matters that will privately discussed
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Clerk on the next business day following this meeting shallfurnish a copy of this resolution to any member of the public who requests one at the fees allowed byNJSA 471A-1 et seq
_________________________________Board President
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS ATRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTIONAPPROVED BY THE RUNNEMEDE BOARD OF EDUCATION AT ITSPUBLIC MEETING HELD ON ______________________20___
_______________________________________Board Secretary
Exhibit Page 3Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 42 of 77
Exhibit Page 4Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 43 of 77
Exhibit Page 5Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 44 of 77
Exhibit Page 6Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 45 of 77
Exhibit Page 7Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 46 of 77
Exhibit Page 8Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 47 of 77
Exhibit Page 9Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 48 of 77
Subject Records RequestFrom John Paff ltpaffpoboxcomgtDate Sat 07 May 2011 161444 -0400To vcarmodyrunnemedeschoolsorgCC psternasgllawcom
Ms Carmody
Please accept this e-mail as my request for government records inaccordance with the Open Public Records Act (OPRA) and the commonlaw right of access Please respond and send all responsivedocuments to me via e-mail at paffpoboxcom If e-mail is notpossible please fax responses and responsive records to me at908-325-0129 Also I would appreciate it if you wouldacknowledge your receipt of this e-mail
Background
In response to a records request I recently received redactedexecutive session minutes for the following dates July 28 2010(first session) August 26 2010 February 2 2011 February 232011 (two sessions) and March 2 2011 Although Mr Stern providedme with a sheet entitled Documents Exempt From OPRA request thatpurports to explain these redactions I am still unclear as to whythe matter was redacted and whether it was lawfully redacted
First I dont understand references such as NJSA 471A-11(12)(c) The version of OPRA that I have (plus every other oneIve seen) does not have internal numbers within NJSA471A-11 Am I correct that NJSA 471A-11(12)(c) isintended to refer to the exemption for records in connection withcollective negotiations including documents and statements ofstrategy or negotiating position and that NJSA 471A-11(7)is intended to refer to any record within the attorney-clientprivilege This paragraph shall not be construed as exempting fromaccess attorney or consultant bills or invoices except that suchbills or invoices may be redacted to remove any informationprotected by the attorney-client privilege Please advise
Second even if I correctly corresponded the claimed exemptions tothe OPRA statute I have no way of knowing whether the mattersredacted are actually exempt from access When a custodiansuppresses any portion of any requested record NJSA471A-5(g) requires him or her to state the ldquospecific basisrdquo foreach suppressed element Beyond stating the ldquospecific basisrdquo foreach suppressed element he or she is required to ldquoproduce
Records Request
1 of 2 622011 810 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 49 of 77
specific reliable evidence sufficient to meet a statutorilyrecognized basis for confidentialityrdquo Courier News v HunterdonCounty Prosecutorrsquos Office 358 NJ Super 373 382-83 (App Div2003) Further he or she must explain each suppression in amanner that ldquowill enable other parties to assess the applicabilityof the privilege or protectionrdquo Paff v New Jersey Department ofLabor Board of Review 379 NJ Super 346 354-55 (2005)(quoting R 410-2(e))
Records requested
Runnemede Board of Education minutes for the following dates July28 2010 (728 pm session only) August 26 2010 February 22011 February 23 2011 (both sessions) and March 2 2011 Iwould like these minutes redacted as narrowly as possible if atall For each redaction I request a written explanation thatmeets the requirements of the case law cited above
cc Phil Stern
Records Request
2 of 2 622011 810 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 50 of 77
Subject Re Fwd Runnemede Board of Education Open PublicMeetings ActFrom John Paff ltpaffpoboxcomgtDate Mon 09 May 2011 134726 -0400To Nancy Ward ltnwardrunnemedeschoolsorggt
Thank you
On 592011 116 PM Nancy Ward wrote
Mr Paff
The Board has named me Custodian of Records Please direct allfuturecommunication to me The May 10 2011 meeting is theRe-organization ofthe Runnemede Board of Education The agenda is set and is verycomprehensive I intend to defer the letter and any discussionregardingits content to the next regular meeting the date of which willbe setat the re-organization tomorrow night In keeping with thedistrictsmeeting pattern that will be May 25 2011
Nancy BWard EdD
Superintendent of Schools
-----Original Message-----From John PaffSent 572011 42300 PMTo nwardrunnemedeschoolsorgCc vcarmodyrunnemedeschoolsorg psternasgllawcomSubject Fwd Runnemede Board of Education Open Public MeetingsAct
Here is another e-mail in case my original one should have beendirected to Ms Ward and not Ms Carmody
JP
-------- Original Message --------Subject Runnemede Board of Education Open Public Meetings ActDate Sat 07 May 2011 152319 -0400From John Paff
Re Fwd Runnemede Board of Education Open Public Meetings Act
1 of 2 622011 811 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 51 of 77
Reply-To paffpoboxcomTo vcarmodyrunnemedeschoolsorg psternasgllawcom
Ms Carmody and Mr Stern
Attached is a letter that I would like the Board to consider atits May10 2011 meeting Would you please a) acknowledge receipt of theletterand b) distribute it to all the Board members
Note that the last paragraph of the letter indicates that I willfilesuit against the Board if the issues in the letter arentaddressedSo if the Boards agenda for the May 10th meeting is so tightthat myletter cannot be accommodated please advise me of such andprovide ameeting date where my letter will be addressed so that I knowthat I amnot being ignored
Thank you
John Paff ChairmanNew Jersey Libertarian PartysOpen Government Advocacy Project
Re Fwd Runnemede Board of Education Open Public Meetings Act
2 of 2 622011 811 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 52 of 77
Subject OPRA RequestFrom Philip Stern ltpsternasgllawcomgtDate Fri 20 May 2011 161015 -0500To paffpoboxcom ltpaffpoboxcomgtCC Nancy Ward ltnwardrunnemedeschoolsorggt
Mr Paff please find attached to this email a response to your request forbusiness records Please note that in providing you with the attachedrecords the Runnemede Borough Board of Education waives no rightsregarding the attorney-client privilege Do not hesitate to call me if youhave any questions Phil Stern
Philip E SternAdams Stern Gutierrez amp Lattiboudere LLCThe Legal Center1037 Raymond Blvd Suite 710Newark New Jersey 07102(973) 735-2742 (office telephone)(201) 914-2415 (cellular telephone)(973) 735-2743 (office telefax)
May 20 Paff responsepdf
Content-DescriptionMay 20 Paffresponsepdf
Content-Type applicationpdf
Content-Encoding base64
OPRA Request
1 of 1 622011 815 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 53 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 54 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 55 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 56 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 57 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 58 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 59 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 60 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 61 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 62 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 63 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 64 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 65 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 66 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 67 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 68 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 69 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 70 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 71 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 72 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 73 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 74 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 75 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 76 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 77 of 77
- Civil Complaint
- Exhibits
-
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 19 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 20 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 21 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 22 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 23 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 24 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 25 of 77
Idled officials payout riles Runnemede
By BARBARA S ROTHSCHILD bull Courier-Post Staff bull March 5 2011
RUNNEMEDE mdash Although the school district is paying Business Administrator Kelly PetersBrazelton her full salary to stay home while paying for an interim employee RunnemedeSuperintendent Nancy Ward said it could have cost more not to have a separationagreement
New Jersey is a very litigious state she said In order to avoid litigation which neveris a good thing a separation agreement gives you a certain outcome
Brazelton a Deptford resident and the former business administrator for the SomerdalePublic School District began working for Runnemede schools in August 2008 Her mostrecent contract for July 1 2010 through June 30 is for $99465 plus benefits
But the relationship soured and the district would not comment on specifics citingconfidentiality
A letter from staff members written to Ward and the school board in July 2010 gaveexamples of a hostile work environment that they said was created by the businessadministrator
Brazelton could not be reached Her attorney Joseph Betley of Mount Laurel said hisclient signed the separation agreement in good faith
There was a disagreement between the board and Kelly he said It was resolved andboth sides decided to move on
She disputes any and all allegations regarding a hostile work environment It wassimply Kelly doing her job
The separation agreement and release dated Oct 20 stipulates Brazelton be placed ona paid leave of absence from Sept 23 to April 15 at which time she would irrevocablyresign
School board President Colleen Kurth said it was much easier to go with a separationagreement than pay more legal fees
She compared paying Brazelton to paying a teacher out sick while a substitute fills in
The job just has to go on Kurth said
Interim Business Administrator Valerie Carmody who retired from the same post in EastGreenwich last year was hired Dec 1 at $60 per hour 24 hours maximum per weekHer contract ends June 30
New Jersey School Boards Association spokesman Mike Yaple said such separationagreements are infrequent
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 26 of 77
No school board willingly enters into an agreement like this he insisted But eventhough its not a popular decision its the lesser of two evils
Residents unhappy about the districts handling of the situation include Dan Conard ajournalism student at Rowan University Conard writes a blog where he discusses schooldistrict and municipal matters To comment on this topic he filed Open Public RecordsAct (OPRA) document requests
I just wanted to get it out there so people know what is going on Conard said
Ward said she has no quarrel with the student but believes Brazeltons case is anunusual circumstance
It (the separation agreement) was the most responsible thing the district could havedone she insisted Was it a bitter pill to swallow It took the board (a while) beforethey felt it was something they could do but it makes the most sense
Ward said the part-time arrangement with Carmody is working out well and that as thedistrict improves efficiency it is unlikely another full-time business administrator will behired particularly when Executive County Superintendent Peggy Nicolosi has advisedagainst it
Among the options being considered are another part-time business administrator or ashared-service agreement with another district
Ward said she would have preferred the money being expended in this case be spent oneducational programs and teachers particularly this year
Although voters passed Runnemedes 2010-11 budget while many others were defeatedlast April the district of 853 students in K-8 lost six staffers and streamlined its gifted-and-talented program after state aid was cut
Ward also defended the decision to keep a maintenance techniciansupervisor positioncreated in 2008 noting it has saved at least $145000 each year
Mark Speck of Voorhees earns $50000 in the post Through June 2010 it was filled byDoug McGarry a former building and grounds supervisor in the Somerdale district Heearned $60000 in Runnemede but had more experience than Speck Ward said
Before Brazelton arrived in Runnemede the business administrator also served asmaintenance supervisor Ward said that actually cost the district more because it had topay outside maintenance workers sometimes for faulty work
Many things had been done to the facilities that were not to the boards satisfactionshe said That first year with our own maintenance person we saved $145000 becausewe hired a person who fixed things
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 27 of 77
Speck works with vendors going over bids and quotes and also does minor repairs thatno longer have to be paid for piecemeal Ward said the position is staying in the 2011-2012 budget adopted preliminarily on Wednesday
Hes the guy whos here at 4 am making sure weve got snow plows when we needthem Ward said Hes dirty and sweaty -- and hes excellent
Ward said the budget sent to the county includes a $78 annual tax increase for theowner of a home assessed at the $97800 borough average but does not cut staff orprograms
Kurth hopes to tweak the budget and lower the tax hike before it is introduced to thepublic on March 23 But she agreed the maintenance supervisor will stay
That was an investment on the part of the school district Kurth said
Reach Barbara S Rothschild at (856) 486-2416 or barothschildcamdengannettcom
--Comments
User Imageamonkeycoulddoit wroteThe mayor cant hear you because she doesnt even know how to turn on a computerNot that it was a requirement that the mayor should know how to use one I think theonly requirement is that they have a pulse And she does but barely372011 12406 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imageamonkeycoulddoit wroteTo sickofpolsnj it does seem that snoopysam has some inside information And whenyou say hows that mayors race looking I hope that you dont mean that someone fromthe disfunctional school board is going to run for mayor or council or some other electedposition considering the mess that they made on the school board372011 11832 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imageamonkeycoulddoit wroteIf the school board president had listened to staff when the hostil work enviroment issuestarted then she might not be in this pickle She should have spent the money on thelegal fees because if everything is true about the hostile enviroment then they wouldhave won the lawsuit hands down and not had to pay out anything and gotten their legalfees back Another example of elected officials not capable of doing the job they are inLets hope that some people come out of the woodwork to run for school board peoplewho care about the kids and the taxpayers372011 11309 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imageamonkeycoulddoit wrote
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 28 of 77
The school boad is not as inept as the mayor and council You dont have to be a collegegraduate or or even be able to read or write to get an elected position in runnemedeThe 2 new council members got elected because the are involved in the union andeveryone who supports the union came out to vote And the new mayor must have a lotof friends But now after the few months they have been in office it is clear to see thatthey are not able to handle the job Mayor14 is right that the people of Runnemedevoted because they thought they would get something in return for their vote but itlooks like they were wrong In the upcoming elections for school board and council votefor the person who will do the best job whether you like them or not Dont just vote forsomeone because you are told to372011 10214 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagethemayor14 wrotei am so glad this article was written and it clearly points out how inept the runnemedeboard of education actually is the board of education is not elected based on businessand education talent the elections are nothing more than a popularity contest i dontknow how other towns operate but runnemede boro is a total joke when it come toelections be it school board or general elections i wish everyone would get their headsout of their A$$ and truly investigate the school board canidates that are running forelection VOTE WITH YOUR HEAD NOT WITH YOUR HEART362011 91350 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagesavetheschools wroteSeveral people are running for the board for four open seats I signed a petition todayfor a new woman running Members are not paid If you live in Runnemede shopstewardyou have until Tuesday to get a petition submitted I asked and found out there is only 5people on average at the BOE meetings every month in Runnemede I hope more peoplestart to go I plan on it myself And we all need to go every month not just when weread negative press about our schools That is the only way we would all stay informedand not rely on the young man submitting OPRA requests Our town has always beenabout the kids and it needs to get back that way362011 80936 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser ImageShopsteward wroteWhy did it take one young man sending in OPRA requests to bring all this to lightWhy are you relying upon him to get to the bottom of it You say The other members(except for the one who was just arrested and resigned) are good people and didnothing wrong to the district and that might be true except for the fact that theyallowed that incredible salary and benefits to be given out and even though all kinds ofrumors were flying around it took an outsider with OPRA requests to bring this ghastlypimple to a head Sounds more like none of them are doing their jobs and should be outof office and off the payroll They should all just resign They arent doing the job thatwas assigned to them362011 32559 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Image
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 29 of 77
Shopsteward wroteA crime was committed here It began with a violation of the Publics trust by the peoplewho allowed this contract to be signed in the first place What a jokeHow many moreof these jobs are hidden in the budgets of our Schools There needs to be a thouroughcleaning of all thses tyeps of employees everywhere At the State County Municipaland Scool board level and the appointed Authorities too Everyone screams about theUnions but whenever you hear of some great big abuse it turns out the person wasnteven in the UnionClean up this mess first Mr Christie before yougo after the little guys It will save us all a lot more money362011 101606 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser ImageShopsteward wroteI still dont get itHow is a part time24 hr a week job worth so much This is aprime example of the waste that is giving the public workers a bad nameThe onlyproblem is it isnt some Union personIts management and its the same all over This isjust the tip of the iceberg they scream about the Unions but the real waste is in jobs likethis oneNo way this job or the thousands of others like it should be paid so well99465 PLUS BENEFITS incrediblethere should be a lawandthe person gets a pension based on that bloated salarytooThere should be other people losing their jobs not for theseperation aggreement but for letting this evenhappen352011 101125 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagethesplits wroteI guess this is Runnemedes version of a shared service352011 73450 PM
User Imagethesplits wroteLooks like its the same old Runnemede and I thought we voted for change Mayor352011 73202 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagesavetheschools wroteFrom what I understand and I live in town the board went into this separationagreement because the BA would have had a potential lawsuit and it would have costthe school district and tax payers a ton of money Much more than they are spendingnow And yes it is one school board member who was apparently corrupt Just one Theyoung man who was mentioned in the article has been OPRA requesting items and willget to the bottom of this situation with the former BA and the certain board memberBut that is just one person The other members (except for the one who was justarrested and resigned) are good people and did nothing wrong to the district Thisformer BA and her friend who was hired as the maint supervisor have been a hot topicfor a few years Ask the employees they were awful and needed to go It is awful thatthis money was not spent on our children It was a trainwreck from the beginning and ifI recall correctly when the hiring took place only one of the members voted no and that
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 30 of 77
was the local high school teacher metioned in another post Runnemede schools arefantastic and maybe the new people running for election will get some answers andmake some changes And maybe the BOE member who was mentioned by employees asbeing the reason why there could be a possible lawsuit should just resign I understandadmin make good money but they also need to be accountable for their actions and ifthe BA made a hostile environment and was supported by one BOE member both shouldbe gonenot just the BA352011 33207 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagecookmom wroteWhere is Gov Christies veto power352011 30321 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagecookmom wroteThis all happened with a local police officer and a FOP member and local high schoolteacher and member of the NJEA on the board The Runnemede Board is looking alotlike the DRPA and was this group picked by the new Mayor352011 30042 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagesickofpolsnj wroteThe real truth is the Board of Education member and Brazelton and the unethicalsituation that THEY created The questionable contracts and underhanded deals There isa certain Board Member that hopes that this ends here well it doesnt There is not aTeacher or employee in Runnemede Schools that would defend Brazelton same goes forSomerdale And many are willing to bring out MANY of the things that Brazelton did todestroy the district The ENTIRE Runnemede School Community is thrilled that Brazeltonis gone Snoopysam is clearly one of two people Kelly or the Board Member shouldwe name names Hows that Mayors race looking352011 114254 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser ImageShopsteward wrote$99465 plus benefits How much does she pay for her share of those benefitsor are they free to her Her replacement only works 24 hours a week are we being toldthat she got that much money for a part time job What is the matter with theidiots that hired her to begin withNo one should get that kind of money for a part timeThat is an awful lot of money for that kind of job We should not be surprised at all Thiskind of thing is everywhere in Camden CountyIts the NORMAL way of doingbusiness352011 113922 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagelookfar111 wroteYep same old story hire someone for $98000 when 10 equally qualified people woulddo it for 60k with a 20 year top out at 75 k Then a sweetheart adios gift And the cherry
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 31 of 77
on top Another tax increase for the people God I hate what the democrat machinehave done to this once great state352011 111649 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser ImageSnoopysam wrotesickofpolsnj you must be on ot those employees that Brazelton held accountable forHER actions You are right there is so much more to this story and when the real truthscome out there will be some emplopyeesadministratorsboard members hanging theirheads in shame Talk about wasting taxpayer dollars take a look at some of the lazyincompetent employees that Brazelton had to deal withand their HUGE mistakes thathad to be corrected which cost the taxpayers thousands upon thousands of dollars352011 94250 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagesickofpolsnj wroteYou are exactly correct A teacher would never get a sweatheart deal like this I wonderwhich Board Member it was that was mentioned in that letter Did you read the blog thatthis all came out on it has way more details than this articlehttpdansviewrunnemedewordpresscom352011 92934 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagesickofpolsnj wroteOnly thing is Runnemede never had these issues Somerdale had the same EXACT issueswith Brazelton Administrators arent allowed to comment however talk to the teachersand employees off record they will tell you all about Kelly352011 92726 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagesickofpolsnj wroteThere is so much more to this story I hope the CP will run a follow up 1 Look into therealtionship and hiring surrounding Doug the maintenance supervisor 2 Check intoBrazeltons past employment Somerdale Schools 3 Brazelton is rumored to be hired atthe completion of the settlement in Deptford 4 Look into unethical practices between aBoard Member and Brazelton 5 And what about the other Board member that wasrecently charged with a serious crime352011 92315 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imageicallbullschit wroteOnce again the government tries to pin their mistakes on an individual when they screwup royally What the paper fails to report is the other side Maybe years and years ofmismanagement and patronage were uncovered and it became a hostile environmentwhen people got called on their actions and the same old routine was stopped Maybethe school board realized it would be cheaper to pay one than to pay many for theirmistakes Maybe the school board was willing to pay in order to keep their dirty littlesecrets covered up Maybe the resident should look deeper into the actions of the schoolboard and the rest of the administration Maybe I am wrong but it seems that the board
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 32 of 77
got called on some issues and now they are attacking one individual to cover theirtracks They seem to be acting like the GREAT WIZARD OF OZ Pay no attention to theidiots behind the curtain we are the all powerful and all knowing school board Pull backthe curtain people because there are people behind there that are faking their waythrough and going to wind up costing the district millions Just saying352011 85642 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagecookmom wroteSchool board President Colleen Kurth said it was much easier to go with a separationagreement than pay more legal fees She compared paying Brazelton to paying ateacher out sick while a substitute fills in The job just has to go on Kurth said I amconfused A teacher out SICK is NOT the same as a HOSTILE work enviorment How cana medical condition be compared to a person being accused of a hostile workenviorment A teacher would be REQUIRED to use their sick days~ since this is beingcompared to an illness ~was Brazelton REQUIRED to give up her sickvacation pay orwas that part of the dealWas she also paid for those days Wouldnt we all love to becollecting a salary from two towns As now she is being paid by Runnemde AND acurrent SCHOOL district where she is currently employed THIS is the waste in ourSchool districts352011 83552 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imageneocon wroteShe is part of the Protected Classes All you need to know is that she is better thanyou so just keep moveing along Nothing to see here352011 81912 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report Abuse
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 33 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 34 of 77
New Jersey Libertarian PartyOpen Government Advocacy Project
John Paff Chairman
PO Box 5424
Somerset NJ 08875-5424
Phone 732-873-1251 - Fax 908-325-0129
Email lpsmcpoboxcom
May 7 2011
Hon Colleen Kurth President and members of the
Runnemede Board of Education
505 W Third Ave
Runnemede NJ 08078 (via e-mail to vcarmodyrunnemedeschoolsorg )
Dear President Kurth and Board members
I write both individually and on behalf the New Jersey Libertarian Partys Open
Government Advocacy Project to comment on 1) the manner in which the Board of Education
goes into nonpublic (ie executive or closed) session and 2) the level of detail contained within
the Boardrsquos executive session minutes
Issue 1 Executive Session resolutions
As you are aware the Senator Byron M Baer Open Public Meetings Act requires public
bodies such as the Runnemede Board of Education to publicly pass a resolution before
excluding the public from a meeting The statute that requires the resolution states
NJSA 104-13mdashClosed meetings resolution to conduct
No public body shall exclude the public from any meeting to discuss any
matter described in subsection 7 b (104-12) until the public body shall
first adopt a resolution at a meeting to which the public shall be admitted
a Stating the general nature of the subject to be discussed and
b Stating as precisely as possible the time when and the circumstances
under which the discussion conducted in closed session of the public body
can be disclosed to the public
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 35 of 77
2
By way of a recent records request I received resolutions which purport to authorize
executive sessions intended to be held by the Board of Education on July 28 2010 (2 sessions)
August 20 2010 February 2 1011 February 23 2011 (2 sessions) and March 2 2011 Those
resolutions which are virtually identical to each other state
Executive Session to discuss student matters personnel contractual and
legal matters [time and a statement as to whether action will be
taken]
[identity of maker of motion etc]
Resolved that pursuant to Section 8 of the Public Meetings Act the public
shall be excluded from that portion of the meeting involving the discussion
of personnel legal and contractual matters Further resolved that
discussion of such subject matters discussed in Executive Session can be
disclosed to public upon official action if any at the conclusion of the
executive session or at a public session at some later date
I dont think that this form of resolution satisfies NJSA 104-13 because it gives the
public no real sense of what is being privately discussed1 To paraphrase the highest court of of
another state a body which only announces ldquolegal mattersrdquo or ldquopersonnel negotiationsrdquo for
going into executive session has said nothing It might has well have stated to the audience
ldquoLadies and gentlemen we are going into executive sessionrdquo and stopped there Hinds County
Board of Supervisors v Common Cause of Mississippi 551 So2d 107 114 (MS 1989)
Of course there can be no dispute that the Board of Education often has legitimate
reasons to meet in nonpublic session Among these reasons is the need to prevent the adverse
parties in litigation or contract negotiations from gaining an unfair advantage and to allow
members of the governing body to debate and deliberate personnel matters without public
scrutiny or participation But the need to discuss matters privately should not prevent the
public from being informed as precisely as possible of the topics that are being privately
discussed
For example suppose that Runnemede Board is being sued by a Mr Jones who was
injured after he slipped and fell on what he claims to be negligently maintained school
property Since the lawsuit is already a public record there is no public purpose served by
vaguely describing a private discussion of it as ldquostudent matters personnel contractual and
legal mattersrdquo Rather the resolution should at the very least describe the private discussion as
1 In January 2007 when I most recently litigated this issue Middlesex County Superior Court Judge Alexander P
Waugh issued a written decision in which he agreed with other court decisions that closed session resolutions
should contain as much information as is consistent with full public knowledge without doing any harm to the
public interest Judge Waughs decision and other case documents are on the Web at
httpogtfarchiveorgOGTFMonroeBOEWebreadypdf
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 36 of 77
3
ldquoDiscussion of slip and fall negligence suit Jones v Runnemede Board Docket No CAM-L-
012345-11rdquo This way the public has a very good sense of what the Boardrsquos private discussion is
about while the ability of the Board to develop its lawsuit strategy is not undermined
Using the same example suppose that Jonesrsquo attorney sent the Boardrsquos attorney an offer
to fully settle the lawsuit upon the Boardrsquos payment of $20000 While the Board would
obviously need to discuss how to respond to the offer in private lest Jones or his attorney
would be in the audience witnessing the discussion there is no reason why the public cannot be
informed in the NJSA 104-13 resolution that the Board will meet in private to discuss ldquoa
settlement offer received from the Plaintiff in the slip and fall negligence suit known as Jones v
Runnemede Board Docket No CAM-L-012345-11 in which the Plaintiff offers to settle the suit
in exchange for the Board paying him $20000rdquo While it may initially seem that this would
provide ldquotoo muchrdquo information to the public this concern disappears once it is realized that
the sole purpose of the exception2 that allows litigation matters to be discussed in private is to
keep the adverse party to the litigation in the dark regarding the Boardrsquos position3 Since in this
example the adverse party (ie Jones) already knows that he offered to settle the lawsuit for
$20000 there is no legitimate reason why the public should not also know of the tendered
settlement offer
As another example suppose that a personnel matter such as whether or not a Mrs
Smith a public works employee should be disciplined because of repeatedly arriving late to
work is to be discussed in closed session In such a case the amount of detail set forth in the
NJSA 104-13 resolution should correspond to the amount of detail that the Board and its
attorney predict will be publicly disclosed in the closed meetingrsquos minutes when those minutes
are made public
The standard that the Board is to use when determining how much information about a
personnel matter is to be disclosed in the closed sessionrsquos minutes is set forth in South Jersey
Publishing Company Inc v New Jersey Expressway Authority 124 NJ 478 (1991) That
standard is that a) the public needs information if it is properly fulfill its role of evaluating the
wisdom of governmental action or a decision not to act b) that New Jerseys strong public
policy requires that a public bodyrsquos actions and decisions to not act be disclosed in the bodys
closed meeting minutes along with sufficient facts and information to permit the public to
understand and appraise the reasonableness of the bodys determination and c) to the extent a
cognizable privacy interest may be compromised by the required disclosure the extent of
disclosure may be modified through redactions of the minutes provided the public interest in
disclosure is not subverted
2 NJSA104-12(b)(7) is to prevent adverse parties to litigation and contracts from learning the details of the
public bodyrsquos negotiation tactics and litigation strategy3 See the discussion in Paff v Washington Township Docket No MER-L-2205-07 and Nevin v Asbury Park City
Board 2005 WL 2847974 (App Div November 1 2005) which are on-line at
httpogtfarchiveorgOGTFWashingtonpdf (Nevin begins at page 44 of the PDF file at the link)
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 37 of 77
4
Thus regardless of whether the Board disciplines Ms Smith or chooses to not impose
discipline due to her lateness the outcome should be recorded in the closed meeting minutes
The question of whether that entry in the minutes should be redacted before the minutes are
made public requires a balancing of Ms Smithrsquos interest in keeping the disciplinary matter
private against the publicrsquos interest in effectively monitoring the Board If the Board with
counselrsquos advice determines after balancing these interests that the outcome will be published
unredacted in the closed sessionrsquos minutes (ie if the minutes will disclose to the public eg that
ldquoMs Smith was suspended for three days on account of her habitual latenessrdquo) then the exact
nature of the matter (ie that ldquothe Board will discuss disciplining Ms Smith for excessive
latenessrdquo) should be set forth in the closed meetingrsquos NJSA 104-13 resolution Inversely if the
Board determines that Ms Smithrsquos privacy interest exceeds the publicrsquos right to know then less
information (eg ldquothe Board will discuss disciplining an employee for excessive latenessrdquo)
should be set forth in the closed meetingrsquos NJSA 104-13 resolution
In other words if the officer or employee being discussed doesnt have a privacy interest
sufficient to withstand a citizens request for the executive session minutes why should not the
public know the topic of the executive session prior to it occurring
Irsquove attached as Exhibit pages 1 -3 is a model resolution that I would like the Board to
use in the future
Issue 2 Executive Session minutes
Attached as Exhibit Page 4 as an example are the Boardrsquos July 28 2010 executive session
minutes It is troubling that a meeting that lasted over an hour is being summed up in a single
sentence ldquoMr Phil Stern addressed the Board of Education about personnel issuesrdquo These
minutes are not ldquoreasonably comprehensiblerdquo as required by NJSA 104-14
The purpose of closed meeting minutes is not merely to inform the public of whatoccurred during the private session but also to create a record for the Board membersthemselves A Board member who is newly elected in 2012 should be able by referringsolely to the minutes to figure out what issues the Board addressed during any previouslyheld closed meeting This hypothetical Board member after reading the July 28 2010closed minutes could not possibly figure out which employees or officials Mr Stern wastalking about
Better practice would be to record closed minutes that are much morecomprehensive but to redact that material that must be shielded from public view Forexample the minutes could have said
Mr Stern addressed the Board of Education about the habitualtardiness of 2nd grade teacher Mary Doe and her propensity to eatlibrary paste and scream hysterically during fire drills Herecommended that she be sent for psychiatric evaluation
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 38 of 77
5
Of course if a member of the public requested these hypothetical minutes the Boardmay need to redact them in order to protect privacy interests The point however is thatregardless of whether unredacted closed meeting minutes are ever released to the publicthey should contain sufficient details so that the Board members themselves can monthsor years later know what was discussed
Attached as Exhibit pages 5 ndash 9 is an order recently entered in Schmidt et al v City of
Gloucester City et al Docket No CAM-L-1287-11 As you can see paraA(3) supports my position
that the Boardrsquos minutes are not ldquoreasonably comprehensiblerdquo as required by law
Conclusion
Since some public bodies do not take my requests for Meetings Act compliance seriously
I regret having to inform the Board that I will sue for declaratory and injunctive relief in
accordance with NJSA 104-16 unless I receive assurances from the Boardmdashwithin a few days
after its May 10 2011 meetingmdashthat it will work in good faith to improve the amount of
information in both its closed session resolutions and minutes If the Boardrsquos agenda is already
set for the May 10 2011 meeting please at least acknowledge this letter and let me know the
date of the meeting at which it will be considered
Thank you very much for your attention to this matter I look forward to hearing from
you
Sincerely
John Paff
cc Philip E Stern Esq w enc (via e-mail to psternasgllawcom )
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 39 of 77
RUNNEMEDE BOARD OF EDUCATIONRESOLUTION NO ___________
AUTHORIZING EXECUTIVE SESSION
WHEREAS while the Sen Byron M Baer Open Public Meetings Act (NJSA 104-6 et seq) requires allmeetings of the Runnemede Board of Education to be held in public NJSA 104-12(b) sets forth nine (9)types of matters that may lawfully be discussed in ldquoExecutive Sessionrdquo ie without the public beingpermitted to attend and
WHEREAS the Runnemede Board of Education has determined that _____ (insert number) issues arepermitted by NJSA 104-12(b) to be discussed without the public in attendance shall be discussed duringan Executive Session to be held on _________________________ 20____ at _______ PM and
WHEREAS the nine (9) exceptions to public meetings set forth in NJSA 104-12(b) are listed below andnext to each exception is a box within which the number of issues to be privately discussed that fall withinthat exception shall be written and after each exception is a space where additional information that willdisclose as much information about the discussion as possible without undermining the purpose of theexception shall be written
ldquo(1) Any matter which by express provision of Federal law State statute or rule of courtshall be rendered confidential or excluded from public discussionrdquo The legal citation to theprovision(s) at issue is__________________________ and the nature of the matter described asspecifically as possible without undermining the need for confidentiality is _______________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(2) Any matter in which the release of information would impair a right to receive fundsfrom the federal governmentrdquo The nature of the matter described as specifically as possiblewithout undermining the need for confidentiality is _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(3) Any material the disclosure of which constitutes an unwarranted invasion of individualprivacy such as any records data reports recommendations or other personal material ofany educational training social service medical health custodial child protectionrehabilitation legal defense welfare housing relocation insurance and similar program orinstitution operated by a public body pertaining to any specific individual admitted to orserved by such institution or program including but not limited to information relative tothe individuals personal and family circumstances and any material pertaining toadmission discharge treatment progress or condition of any individual unless theindividual concerned (or in the case of a minor or incompetent his guardian) shall requestin writing that the same be disclosed publiclyrdquo The nature of the matter described asspecifically as possible without undermining the need for confidentiality is______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(4) Any collective bargaining agreement or the terms and conditions of which are proposedfor inclusion in any collective bargaining agreement including the negotiation of terms andconditions with employees or representatives of employees of the public bodyrdquo The collectivebargaining contract(s) discussed are between the Board and ____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Exhibit Page 1Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 40 of 77
ldquo(5) Any matter involving the purchase lease or acquisition of real property with publicfunds the setting of bank rates or investment of public funds where it could adversely affectthe public interest if discussion of such matters were disclosedrdquo The nature of the matterdescribed as specifically as possible without undermining the need for confidentiality is____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(6) Any tactics and techniques utilized in protecting the safety and property of the publicprovided that their disclosure could impair such protection Any investigations of violationsor possible violations of the lawrdquo The nature of the matter described as specifically as possiblewithout undermining the need for confidentiality is ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(7) Any pending or anticipated litigation or contract negotiation in which the public body isor may become a party Any matters falling within the attorney-client privilege to the extentthat confidentiality is required in order for the attorney to exercise his ethicalduties as a lawyerrdquo The parties to and docket numbers of each item of litigation andor theparties to each contract discussed are __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ andnature of the discussion described as specifically as possible without undermining the need forconfidentiality is ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(8) Any matter involving the employment appointment termination of employment termsand conditions of employment evaluation of the performance promotion or disciplining ofany specific prospective public officer or employee or current public officer or employeeemployed or appointed by the public body unless all individual employees or appointees whoserights could be adversely affected request in writing that such matter or matters be discussed ata public meetingrdquo Subject to the balancing of the publicrsquos interest and the employeersquos privacyrights under South Jersey Publishing Co v New Jersey Expressway Authority 124 NJ 478 theemployee(s) and nature of the discussion described as specifically as possible withoutundermining the need for confidentiality are _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(9) Any deliberation of a public body occurring after a public hearing that may result in theimposition of a specific civil penalty upon the responding party or the suspension or loss of alicense or permit belonging to the responding party as a result of an act of omission forwhich the responding party bears responsibilityrdquo The nature of the matter described asspecifically as possible without undermining the need for confidentiality is______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
WHEREAS the length of the Executive Session is estimated to be ________ minutes after which the publicmeeting of the Board shall (circle one) reconvene and immediately adjourn or reconvene and proceed withbusiness
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Runnemede Board of Education will go into ExecutiveSession for only the above stated reasons
Exhibit Page 2Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 41 of 77
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board hereby declares that its discussion of the aforementionedsubject(s) will be made public at a time when the publicrsquos interest in disclosure is greater than any privacy orgovernmental interest being protected from disclosure For each of the above items the estimated date bywhich such disclosure can be made andor the occurrence that needs to take place before disclosure can bemade are listed below (attach separate sheet if necessary)
Subject of Discussion Estimated Date Necessary Occurrence
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Clerk at the present public meeting shall read aloud enough ofthis resolution so that members of the public in attendance can understand as precisely as possible thenature of the matters that will privately discussed
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Clerk on the next business day following this meeting shallfurnish a copy of this resolution to any member of the public who requests one at the fees allowed byNJSA 471A-1 et seq
_________________________________Board President
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS ATRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTIONAPPROVED BY THE RUNNEMEDE BOARD OF EDUCATION AT ITSPUBLIC MEETING HELD ON ______________________20___
_______________________________________Board Secretary
Exhibit Page 3Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 42 of 77
Exhibit Page 4Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 43 of 77
Exhibit Page 5Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 44 of 77
Exhibit Page 6Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 45 of 77
Exhibit Page 7Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 46 of 77
Exhibit Page 8Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 47 of 77
Exhibit Page 9Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 48 of 77
Subject Records RequestFrom John Paff ltpaffpoboxcomgtDate Sat 07 May 2011 161444 -0400To vcarmodyrunnemedeschoolsorgCC psternasgllawcom
Ms Carmody
Please accept this e-mail as my request for government records inaccordance with the Open Public Records Act (OPRA) and the commonlaw right of access Please respond and send all responsivedocuments to me via e-mail at paffpoboxcom If e-mail is notpossible please fax responses and responsive records to me at908-325-0129 Also I would appreciate it if you wouldacknowledge your receipt of this e-mail
Background
In response to a records request I recently received redactedexecutive session minutes for the following dates July 28 2010(first session) August 26 2010 February 2 2011 February 232011 (two sessions) and March 2 2011 Although Mr Stern providedme with a sheet entitled Documents Exempt From OPRA request thatpurports to explain these redactions I am still unclear as to whythe matter was redacted and whether it was lawfully redacted
First I dont understand references such as NJSA 471A-11(12)(c) The version of OPRA that I have (plus every other oneIve seen) does not have internal numbers within NJSA471A-11 Am I correct that NJSA 471A-11(12)(c) isintended to refer to the exemption for records in connection withcollective negotiations including documents and statements ofstrategy or negotiating position and that NJSA 471A-11(7)is intended to refer to any record within the attorney-clientprivilege This paragraph shall not be construed as exempting fromaccess attorney or consultant bills or invoices except that suchbills or invoices may be redacted to remove any informationprotected by the attorney-client privilege Please advise
Second even if I correctly corresponded the claimed exemptions tothe OPRA statute I have no way of knowing whether the mattersredacted are actually exempt from access When a custodiansuppresses any portion of any requested record NJSA471A-5(g) requires him or her to state the ldquospecific basisrdquo foreach suppressed element Beyond stating the ldquospecific basisrdquo foreach suppressed element he or she is required to ldquoproduce
Records Request
1 of 2 622011 810 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 49 of 77
specific reliable evidence sufficient to meet a statutorilyrecognized basis for confidentialityrdquo Courier News v HunterdonCounty Prosecutorrsquos Office 358 NJ Super 373 382-83 (App Div2003) Further he or she must explain each suppression in amanner that ldquowill enable other parties to assess the applicabilityof the privilege or protectionrdquo Paff v New Jersey Department ofLabor Board of Review 379 NJ Super 346 354-55 (2005)(quoting R 410-2(e))
Records requested
Runnemede Board of Education minutes for the following dates July28 2010 (728 pm session only) August 26 2010 February 22011 February 23 2011 (both sessions) and March 2 2011 Iwould like these minutes redacted as narrowly as possible if atall For each redaction I request a written explanation thatmeets the requirements of the case law cited above
cc Phil Stern
Records Request
2 of 2 622011 810 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 50 of 77
Subject Re Fwd Runnemede Board of Education Open PublicMeetings ActFrom John Paff ltpaffpoboxcomgtDate Mon 09 May 2011 134726 -0400To Nancy Ward ltnwardrunnemedeschoolsorggt
Thank you
On 592011 116 PM Nancy Ward wrote
Mr Paff
The Board has named me Custodian of Records Please direct allfuturecommunication to me The May 10 2011 meeting is theRe-organization ofthe Runnemede Board of Education The agenda is set and is verycomprehensive I intend to defer the letter and any discussionregardingits content to the next regular meeting the date of which willbe setat the re-organization tomorrow night In keeping with thedistrictsmeeting pattern that will be May 25 2011
Nancy BWard EdD
Superintendent of Schools
-----Original Message-----From John PaffSent 572011 42300 PMTo nwardrunnemedeschoolsorgCc vcarmodyrunnemedeschoolsorg psternasgllawcomSubject Fwd Runnemede Board of Education Open Public MeetingsAct
Here is another e-mail in case my original one should have beendirected to Ms Ward and not Ms Carmody
JP
-------- Original Message --------Subject Runnemede Board of Education Open Public Meetings ActDate Sat 07 May 2011 152319 -0400From John Paff
Re Fwd Runnemede Board of Education Open Public Meetings Act
1 of 2 622011 811 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 51 of 77
Reply-To paffpoboxcomTo vcarmodyrunnemedeschoolsorg psternasgllawcom
Ms Carmody and Mr Stern
Attached is a letter that I would like the Board to consider atits May10 2011 meeting Would you please a) acknowledge receipt of theletterand b) distribute it to all the Board members
Note that the last paragraph of the letter indicates that I willfilesuit against the Board if the issues in the letter arentaddressedSo if the Boards agenda for the May 10th meeting is so tightthat myletter cannot be accommodated please advise me of such andprovide ameeting date where my letter will be addressed so that I knowthat I amnot being ignored
Thank you
John Paff ChairmanNew Jersey Libertarian PartysOpen Government Advocacy Project
Re Fwd Runnemede Board of Education Open Public Meetings Act
2 of 2 622011 811 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 52 of 77
Subject OPRA RequestFrom Philip Stern ltpsternasgllawcomgtDate Fri 20 May 2011 161015 -0500To paffpoboxcom ltpaffpoboxcomgtCC Nancy Ward ltnwardrunnemedeschoolsorggt
Mr Paff please find attached to this email a response to your request forbusiness records Please note that in providing you with the attachedrecords the Runnemede Borough Board of Education waives no rightsregarding the attorney-client privilege Do not hesitate to call me if youhave any questions Phil Stern
Philip E SternAdams Stern Gutierrez amp Lattiboudere LLCThe Legal Center1037 Raymond Blvd Suite 710Newark New Jersey 07102(973) 735-2742 (office telephone)(201) 914-2415 (cellular telephone)(973) 735-2743 (office telefax)
May 20 Paff responsepdf
Content-DescriptionMay 20 Paffresponsepdf
Content-Type applicationpdf
Content-Encoding base64
OPRA Request
1 of 1 622011 815 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 53 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 54 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 55 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 56 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 57 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 58 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 59 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 60 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 61 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 62 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 63 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 64 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 65 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 66 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 67 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 68 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 69 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 70 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 71 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 72 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 73 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 74 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 75 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 76 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 77 of 77
- Civil Complaint
- Exhibits
-
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 20 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 21 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 22 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 23 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 24 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 25 of 77
Idled officials payout riles Runnemede
By BARBARA S ROTHSCHILD bull Courier-Post Staff bull March 5 2011
RUNNEMEDE mdash Although the school district is paying Business Administrator Kelly PetersBrazelton her full salary to stay home while paying for an interim employee RunnemedeSuperintendent Nancy Ward said it could have cost more not to have a separationagreement
New Jersey is a very litigious state she said In order to avoid litigation which neveris a good thing a separation agreement gives you a certain outcome
Brazelton a Deptford resident and the former business administrator for the SomerdalePublic School District began working for Runnemede schools in August 2008 Her mostrecent contract for July 1 2010 through June 30 is for $99465 plus benefits
But the relationship soured and the district would not comment on specifics citingconfidentiality
A letter from staff members written to Ward and the school board in July 2010 gaveexamples of a hostile work environment that they said was created by the businessadministrator
Brazelton could not be reached Her attorney Joseph Betley of Mount Laurel said hisclient signed the separation agreement in good faith
There was a disagreement between the board and Kelly he said It was resolved andboth sides decided to move on
She disputes any and all allegations regarding a hostile work environment It wassimply Kelly doing her job
The separation agreement and release dated Oct 20 stipulates Brazelton be placed ona paid leave of absence from Sept 23 to April 15 at which time she would irrevocablyresign
School board President Colleen Kurth said it was much easier to go with a separationagreement than pay more legal fees
She compared paying Brazelton to paying a teacher out sick while a substitute fills in
The job just has to go on Kurth said
Interim Business Administrator Valerie Carmody who retired from the same post in EastGreenwich last year was hired Dec 1 at $60 per hour 24 hours maximum per weekHer contract ends June 30
New Jersey School Boards Association spokesman Mike Yaple said such separationagreements are infrequent
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 26 of 77
No school board willingly enters into an agreement like this he insisted But eventhough its not a popular decision its the lesser of two evils
Residents unhappy about the districts handling of the situation include Dan Conard ajournalism student at Rowan University Conard writes a blog where he discusses schooldistrict and municipal matters To comment on this topic he filed Open Public RecordsAct (OPRA) document requests
I just wanted to get it out there so people know what is going on Conard said
Ward said she has no quarrel with the student but believes Brazeltons case is anunusual circumstance
It (the separation agreement) was the most responsible thing the district could havedone she insisted Was it a bitter pill to swallow It took the board (a while) beforethey felt it was something they could do but it makes the most sense
Ward said the part-time arrangement with Carmody is working out well and that as thedistrict improves efficiency it is unlikely another full-time business administrator will behired particularly when Executive County Superintendent Peggy Nicolosi has advisedagainst it
Among the options being considered are another part-time business administrator or ashared-service agreement with another district
Ward said she would have preferred the money being expended in this case be spent oneducational programs and teachers particularly this year
Although voters passed Runnemedes 2010-11 budget while many others were defeatedlast April the district of 853 students in K-8 lost six staffers and streamlined its gifted-and-talented program after state aid was cut
Ward also defended the decision to keep a maintenance techniciansupervisor positioncreated in 2008 noting it has saved at least $145000 each year
Mark Speck of Voorhees earns $50000 in the post Through June 2010 it was filled byDoug McGarry a former building and grounds supervisor in the Somerdale district Heearned $60000 in Runnemede but had more experience than Speck Ward said
Before Brazelton arrived in Runnemede the business administrator also served asmaintenance supervisor Ward said that actually cost the district more because it had topay outside maintenance workers sometimes for faulty work
Many things had been done to the facilities that were not to the boards satisfactionshe said That first year with our own maintenance person we saved $145000 becausewe hired a person who fixed things
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 27 of 77
Speck works with vendors going over bids and quotes and also does minor repairs thatno longer have to be paid for piecemeal Ward said the position is staying in the 2011-2012 budget adopted preliminarily on Wednesday
Hes the guy whos here at 4 am making sure weve got snow plows when we needthem Ward said Hes dirty and sweaty -- and hes excellent
Ward said the budget sent to the county includes a $78 annual tax increase for theowner of a home assessed at the $97800 borough average but does not cut staff orprograms
Kurth hopes to tweak the budget and lower the tax hike before it is introduced to thepublic on March 23 But she agreed the maintenance supervisor will stay
That was an investment on the part of the school district Kurth said
Reach Barbara S Rothschild at (856) 486-2416 or barothschildcamdengannettcom
--Comments
User Imageamonkeycoulddoit wroteThe mayor cant hear you because she doesnt even know how to turn on a computerNot that it was a requirement that the mayor should know how to use one I think theonly requirement is that they have a pulse And she does but barely372011 12406 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imageamonkeycoulddoit wroteTo sickofpolsnj it does seem that snoopysam has some inside information And whenyou say hows that mayors race looking I hope that you dont mean that someone fromthe disfunctional school board is going to run for mayor or council or some other electedposition considering the mess that they made on the school board372011 11832 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imageamonkeycoulddoit wroteIf the school board president had listened to staff when the hostil work enviroment issuestarted then she might not be in this pickle She should have spent the money on thelegal fees because if everything is true about the hostile enviroment then they wouldhave won the lawsuit hands down and not had to pay out anything and gotten their legalfees back Another example of elected officials not capable of doing the job they are inLets hope that some people come out of the woodwork to run for school board peoplewho care about the kids and the taxpayers372011 11309 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imageamonkeycoulddoit wrote
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 28 of 77
The school boad is not as inept as the mayor and council You dont have to be a collegegraduate or or even be able to read or write to get an elected position in runnemedeThe 2 new council members got elected because the are involved in the union andeveryone who supports the union came out to vote And the new mayor must have a lotof friends But now after the few months they have been in office it is clear to see thatthey are not able to handle the job Mayor14 is right that the people of Runnemedevoted because they thought they would get something in return for their vote but itlooks like they were wrong In the upcoming elections for school board and council votefor the person who will do the best job whether you like them or not Dont just vote forsomeone because you are told to372011 10214 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagethemayor14 wrotei am so glad this article was written and it clearly points out how inept the runnemedeboard of education actually is the board of education is not elected based on businessand education talent the elections are nothing more than a popularity contest i dontknow how other towns operate but runnemede boro is a total joke when it come toelections be it school board or general elections i wish everyone would get their headsout of their A$$ and truly investigate the school board canidates that are running forelection VOTE WITH YOUR HEAD NOT WITH YOUR HEART362011 91350 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagesavetheschools wroteSeveral people are running for the board for four open seats I signed a petition todayfor a new woman running Members are not paid If you live in Runnemede shopstewardyou have until Tuesday to get a petition submitted I asked and found out there is only 5people on average at the BOE meetings every month in Runnemede I hope more peoplestart to go I plan on it myself And we all need to go every month not just when weread negative press about our schools That is the only way we would all stay informedand not rely on the young man submitting OPRA requests Our town has always beenabout the kids and it needs to get back that way362011 80936 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser ImageShopsteward wroteWhy did it take one young man sending in OPRA requests to bring all this to lightWhy are you relying upon him to get to the bottom of it You say The other members(except for the one who was just arrested and resigned) are good people and didnothing wrong to the district and that might be true except for the fact that theyallowed that incredible salary and benefits to be given out and even though all kinds ofrumors were flying around it took an outsider with OPRA requests to bring this ghastlypimple to a head Sounds more like none of them are doing their jobs and should be outof office and off the payroll They should all just resign They arent doing the job thatwas assigned to them362011 32559 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Image
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 29 of 77
Shopsteward wroteA crime was committed here It began with a violation of the Publics trust by the peoplewho allowed this contract to be signed in the first place What a jokeHow many moreof these jobs are hidden in the budgets of our Schools There needs to be a thouroughcleaning of all thses tyeps of employees everywhere At the State County Municipaland Scool board level and the appointed Authorities too Everyone screams about theUnions but whenever you hear of some great big abuse it turns out the person wasnteven in the UnionClean up this mess first Mr Christie before yougo after the little guys It will save us all a lot more money362011 101606 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser ImageShopsteward wroteI still dont get itHow is a part time24 hr a week job worth so much This is aprime example of the waste that is giving the public workers a bad nameThe onlyproblem is it isnt some Union personIts management and its the same all over This isjust the tip of the iceberg they scream about the Unions but the real waste is in jobs likethis oneNo way this job or the thousands of others like it should be paid so well99465 PLUS BENEFITS incrediblethere should be a lawandthe person gets a pension based on that bloated salarytooThere should be other people losing their jobs not for theseperation aggreement but for letting this evenhappen352011 101125 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagethesplits wroteI guess this is Runnemedes version of a shared service352011 73450 PM
User Imagethesplits wroteLooks like its the same old Runnemede and I thought we voted for change Mayor352011 73202 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagesavetheschools wroteFrom what I understand and I live in town the board went into this separationagreement because the BA would have had a potential lawsuit and it would have costthe school district and tax payers a ton of money Much more than they are spendingnow And yes it is one school board member who was apparently corrupt Just one Theyoung man who was mentioned in the article has been OPRA requesting items and willget to the bottom of this situation with the former BA and the certain board memberBut that is just one person The other members (except for the one who was justarrested and resigned) are good people and did nothing wrong to the district Thisformer BA and her friend who was hired as the maint supervisor have been a hot topicfor a few years Ask the employees they were awful and needed to go It is awful thatthis money was not spent on our children It was a trainwreck from the beginning and ifI recall correctly when the hiring took place only one of the members voted no and that
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 30 of 77
was the local high school teacher metioned in another post Runnemede schools arefantastic and maybe the new people running for election will get some answers andmake some changes And maybe the BOE member who was mentioned by employees asbeing the reason why there could be a possible lawsuit should just resign I understandadmin make good money but they also need to be accountable for their actions and ifthe BA made a hostile environment and was supported by one BOE member both shouldbe gonenot just the BA352011 33207 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagecookmom wroteWhere is Gov Christies veto power352011 30321 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagecookmom wroteThis all happened with a local police officer and a FOP member and local high schoolteacher and member of the NJEA on the board The Runnemede Board is looking alotlike the DRPA and was this group picked by the new Mayor352011 30042 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagesickofpolsnj wroteThe real truth is the Board of Education member and Brazelton and the unethicalsituation that THEY created The questionable contracts and underhanded deals There isa certain Board Member that hopes that this ends here well it doesnt There is not aTeacher or employee in Runnemede Schools that would defend Brazelton same goes forSomerdale And many are willing to bring out MANY of the things that Brazelton did todestroy the district The ENTIRE Runnemede School Community is thrilled that Brazeltonis gone Snoopysam is clearly one of two people Kelly or the Board Member shouldwe name names Hows that Mayors race looking352011 114254 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser ImageShopsteward wrote$99465 plus benefits How much does she pay for her share of those benefitsor are they free to her Her replacement only works 24 hours a week are we being toldthat she got that much money for a part time job What is the matter with theidiots that hired her to begin withNo one should get that kind of money for a part timeThat is an awful lot of money for that kind of job We should not be surprised at all Thiskind of thing is everywhere in Camden CountyIts the NORMAL way of doingbusiness352011 113922 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagelookfar111 wroteYep same old story hire someone for $98000 when 10 equally qualified people woulddo it for 60k with a 20 year top out at 75 k Then a sweetheart adios gift And the cherry
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 31 of 77
on top Another tax increase for the people God I hate what the democrat machinehave done to this once great state352011 111649 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser ImageSnoopysam wrotesickofpolsnj you must be on ot those employees that Brazelton held accountable forHER actions You are right there is so much more to this story and when the real truthscome out there will be some emplopyeesadministratorsboard members hanging theirheads in shame Talk about wasting taxpayer dollars take a look at some of the lazyincompetent employees that Brazelton had to deal withand their HUGE mistakes thathad to be corrected which cost the taxpayers thousands upon thousands of dollars352011 94250 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagesickofpolsnj wroteYou are exactly correct A teacher would never get a sweatheart deal like this I wonderwhich Board Member it was that was mentioned in that letter Did you read the blog thatthis all came out on it has way more details than this articlehttpdansviewrunnemedewordpresscom352011 92934 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagesickofpolsnj wroteOnly thing is Runnemede never had these issues Somerdale had the same EXACT issueswith Brazelton Administrators arent allowed to comment however talk to the teachersand employees off record they will tell you all about Kelly352011 92726 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagesickofpolsnj wroteThere is so much more to this story I hope the CP will run a follow up 1 Look into therealtionship and hiring surrounding Doug the maintenance supervisor 2 Check intoBrazeltons past employment Somerdale Schools 3 Brazelton is rumored to be hired atthe completion of the settlement in Deptford 4 Look into unethical practices between aBoard Member and Brazelton 5 And what about the other Board member that wasrecently charged with a serious crime352011 92315 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imageicallbullschit wroteOnce again the government tries to pin their mistakes on an individual when they screwup royally What the paper fails to report is the other side Maybe years and years ofmismanagement and patronage were uncovered and it became a hostile environmentwhen people got called on their actions and the same old routine was stopped Maybethe school board realized it would be cheaper to pay one than to pay many for theirmistakes Maybe the school board was willing to pay in order to keep their dirty littlesecrets covered up Maybe the resident should look deeper into the actions of the schoolboard and the rest of the administration Maybe I am wrong but it seems that the board
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 32 of 77
got called on some issues and now they are attacking one individual to cover theirtracks They seem to be acting like the GREAT WIZARD OF OZ Pay no attention to theidiots behind the curtain we are the all powerful and all knowing school board Pull backthe curtain people because there are people behind there that are faking their waythrough and going to wind up costing the district millions Just saying352011 85642 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagecookmom wroteSchool board President Colleen Kurth said it was much easier to go with a separationagreement than pay more legal fees She compared paying Brazelton to paying ateacher out sick while a substitute fills in The job just has to go on Kurth said I amconfused A teacher out SICK is NOT the same as a HOSTILE work enviorment How cana medical condition be compared to a person being accused of a hostile workenviorment A teacher would be REQUIRED to use their sick days~ since this is beingcompared to an illness ~was Brazelton REQUIRED to give up her sickvacation pay orwas that part of the dealWas she also paid for those days Wouldnt we all love to becollecting a salary from two towns As now she is being paid by Runnemde AND acurrent SCHOOL district where she is currently employed THIS is the waste in ourSchool districts352011 83552 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imageneocon wroteShe is part of the Protected Classes All you need to know is that she is better thanyou so just keep moveing along Nothing to see here352011 81912 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report Abuse
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 33 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 34 of 77
New Jersey Libertarian PartyOpen Government Advocacy Project
John Paff Chairman
PO Box 5424
Somerset NJ 08875-5424
Phone 732-873-1251 - Fax 908-325-0129
Email lpsmcpoboxcom
May 7 2011
Hon Colleen Kurth President and members of the
Runnemede Board of Education
505 W Third Ave
Runnemede NJ 08078 (via e-mail to vcarmodyrunnemedeschoolsorg )
Dear President Kurth and Board members
I write both individually and on behalf the New Jersey Libertarian Partys Open
Government Advocacy Project to comment on 1) the manner in which the Board of Education
goes into nonpublic (ie executive or closed) session and 2) the level of detail contained within
the Boardrsquos executive session minutes
Issue 1 Executive Session resolutions
As you are aware the Senator Byron M Baer Open Public Meetings Act requires public
bodies such as the Runnemede Board of Education to publicly pass a resolution before
excluding the public from a meeting The statute that requires the resolution states
NJSA 104-13mdashClosed meetings resolution to conduct
No public body shall exclude the public from any meeting to discuss any
matter described in subsection 7 b (104-12) until the public body shall
first adopt a resolution at a meeting to which the public shall be admitted
a Stating the general nature of the subject to be discussed and
b Stating as precisely as possible the time when and the circumstances
under which the discussion conducted in closed session of the public body
can be disclosed to the public
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 35 of 77
2
By way of a recent records request I received resolutions which purport to authorize
executive sessions intended to be held by the Board of Education on July 28 2010 (2 sessions)
August 20 2010 February 2 1011 February 23 2011 (2 sessions) and March 2 2011 Those
resolutions which are virtually identical to each other state
Executive Session to discuss student matters personnel contractual and
legal matters [time and a statement as to whether action will be
taken]
[identity of maker of motion etc]
Resolved that pursuant to Section 8 of the Public Meetings Act the public
shall be excluded from that portion of the meeting involving the discussion
of personnel legal and contractual matters Further resolved that
discussion of such subject matters discussed in Executive Session can be
disclosed to public upon official action if any at the conclusion of the
executive session or at a public session at some later date
I dont think that this form of resolution satisfies NJSA 104-13 because it gives the
public no real sense of what is being privately discussed1 To paraphrase the highest court of of
another state a body which only announces ldquolegal mattersrdquo or ldquopersonnel negotiationsrdquo for
going into executive session has said nothing It might has well have stated to the audience
ldquoLadies and gentlemen we are going into executive sessionrdquo and stopped there Hinds County
Board of Supervisors v Common Cause of Mississippi 551 So2d 107 114 (MS 1989)
Of course there can be no dispute that the Board of Education often has legitimate
reasons to meet in nonpublic session Among these reasons is the need to prevent the adverse
parties in litigation or contract negotiations from gaining an unfair advantage and to allow
members of the governing body to debate and deliberate personnel matters without public
scrutiny or participation But the need to discuss matters privately should not prevent the
public from being informed as precisely as possible of the topics that are being privately
discussed
For example suppose that Runnemede Board is being sued by a Mr Jones who was
injured after he slipped and fell on what he claims to be negligently maintained school
property Since the lawsuit is already a public record there is no public purpose served by
vaguely describing a private discussion of it as ldquostudent matters personnel contractual and
legal mattersrdquo Rather the resolution should at the very least describe the private discussion as
1 In January 2007 when I most recently litigated this issue Middlesex County Superior Court Judge Alexander P
Waugh issued a written decision in which he agreed with other court decisions that closed session resolutions
should contain as much information as is consistent with full public knowledge without doing any harm to the
public interest Judge Waughs decision and other case documents are on the Web at
httpogtfarchiveorgOGTFMonroeBOEWebreadypdf
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 36 of 77
3
ldquoDiscussion of slip and fall negligence suit Jones v Runnemede Board Docket No CAM-L-
012345-11rdquo This way the public has a very good sense of what the Boardrsquos private discussion is
about while the ability of the Board to develop its lawsuit strategy is not undermined
Using the same example suppose that Jonesrsquo attorney sent the Boardrsquos attorney an offer
to fully settle the lawsuit upon the Boardrsquos payment of $20000 While the Board would
obviously need to discuss how to respond to the offer in private lest Jones or his attorney
would be in the audience witnessing the discussion there is no reason why the public cannot be
informed in the NJSA 104-13 resolution that the Board will meet in private to discuss ldquoa
settlement offer received from the Plaintiff in the slip and fall negligence suit known as Jones v
Runnemede Board Docket No CAM-L-012345-11 in which the Plaintiff offers to settle the suit
in exchange for the Board paying him $20000rdquo While it may initially seem that this would
provide ldquotoo muchrdquo information to the public this concern disappears once it is realized that
the sole purpose of the exception2 that allows litigation matters to be discussed in private is to
keep the adverse party to the litigation in the dark regarding the Boardrsquos position3 Since in this
example the adverse party (ie Jones) already knows that he offered to settle the lawsuit for
$20000 there is no legitimate reason why the public should not also know of the tendered
settlement offer
As another example suppose that a personnel matter such as whether or not a Mrs
Smith a public works employee should be disciplined because of repeatedly arriving late to
work is to be discussed in closed session In such a case the amount of detail set forth in the
NJSA 104-13 resolution should correspond to the amount of detail that the Board and its
attorney predict will be publicly disclosed in the closed meetingrsquos minutes when those minutes
are made public
The standard that the Board is to use when determining how much information about a
personnel matter is to be disclosed in the closed sessionrsquos minutes is set forth in South Jersey
Publishing Company Inc v New Jersey Expressway Authority 124 NJ 478 (1991) That
standard is that a) the public needs information if it is properly fulfill its role of evaluating the
wisdom of governmental action or a decision not to act b) that New Jerseys strong public
policy requires that a public bodyrsquos actions and decisions to not act be disclosed in the bodys
closed meeting minutes along with sufficient facts and information to permit the public to
understand and appraise the reasonableness of the bodys determination and c) to the extent a
cognizable privacy interest may be compromised by the required disclosure the extent of
disclosure may be modified through redactions of the minutes provided the public interest in
disclosure is not subverted
2 NJSA104-12(b)(7) is to prevent adverse parties to litigation and contracts from learning the details of the
public bodyrsquos negotiation tactics and litigation strategy3 See the discussion in Paff v Washington Township Docket No MER-L-2205-07 and Nevin v Asbury Park City
Board 2005 WL 2847974 (App Div November 1 2005) which are on-line at
httpogtfarchiveorgOGTFWashingtonpdf (Nevin begins at page 44 of the PDF file at the link)
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 37 of 77
4
Thus regardless of whether the Board disciplines Ms Smith or chooses to not impose
discipline due to her lateness the outcome should be recorded in the closed meeting minutes
The question of whether that entry in the minutes should be redacted before the minutes are
made public requires a balancing of Ms Smithrsquos interest in keeping the disciplinary matter
private against the publicrsquos interest in effectively monitoring the Board If the Board with
counselrsquos advice determines after balancing these interests that the outcome will be published
unredacted in the closed sessionrsquos minutes (ie if the minutes will disclose to the public eg that
ldquoMs Smith was suspended for three days on account of her habitual latenessrdquo) then the exact
nature of the matter (ie that ldquothe Board will discuss disciplining Ms Smith for excessive
latenessrdquo) should be set forth in the closed meetingrsquos NJSA 104-13 resolution Inversely if the
Board determines that Ms Smithrsquos privacy interest exceeds the publicrsquos right to know then less
information (eg ldquothe Board will discuss disciplining an employee for excessive latenessrdquo)
should be set forth in the closed meetingrsquos NJSA 104-13 resolution
In other words if the officer or employee being discussed doesnt have a privacy interest
sufficient to withstand a citizens request for the executive session minutes why should not the
public know the topic of the executive session prior to it occurring
Irsquove attached as Exhibit pages 1 -3 is a model resolution that I would like the Board to
use in the future
Issue 2 Executive Session minutes
Attached as Exhibit Page 4 as an example are the Boardrsquos July 28 2010 executive session
minutes It is troubling that a meeting that lasted over an hour is being summed up in a single
sentence ldquoMr Phil Stern addressed the Board of Education about personnel issuesrdquo These
minutes are not ldquoreasonably comprehensiblerdquo as required by NJSA 104-14
The purpose of closed meeting minutes is not merely to inform the public of whatoccurred during the private session but also to create a record for the Board membersthemselves A Board member who is newly elected in 2012 should be able by referringsolely to the minutes to figure out what issues the Board addressed during any previouslyheld closed meeting This hypothetical Board member after reading the July 28 2010closed minutes could not possibly figure out which employees or officials Mr Stern wastalking about
Better practice would be to record closed minutes that are much morecomprehensive but to redact that material that must be shielded from public view Forexample the minutes could have said
Mr Stern addressed the Board of Education about the habitualtardiness of 2nd grade teacher Mary Doe and her propensity to eatlibrary paste and scream hysterically during fire drills Herecommended that she be sent for psychiatric evaluation
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 38 of 77
5
Of course if a member of the public requested these hypothetical minutes the Boardmay need to redact them in order to protect privacy interests The point however is thatregardless of whether unredacted closed meeting minutes are ever released to the publicthey should contain sufficient details so that the Board members themselves can monthsor years later know what was discussed
Attached as Exhibit pages 5 ndash 9 is an order recently entered in Schmidt et al v City of
Gloucester City et al Docket No CAM-L-1287-11 As you can see paraA(3) supports my position
that the Boardrsquos minutes are not ldquoreasonably comprehensiblerdquo as required by law
Conclusion
Since some public bodies do not take my requests for Meetings Act compliance seriously
I regret having to inform the Board that I will sue for declaratory and injunctive relief in
accordance with NJSA 104-16 unless I receive assurances from the Boardmdashwithin a few days
after its May 10 2011 meetingmdashthat it will work in good faith to improve the amount of
information in both its closed session resolutions and minutes If the Boardrsquos agenda is already
set for the May 10 2011 meeting please at least acknowledge this letter and let me know the
date of the meeting at which it will be considered
Thank you very much for your attention to this matter I look forward to hearing from
you
Sincerely
John Paff
cc Philip E Stern Esq w enc (via e-mail to psternasgllawcom )
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 39 of 77
RUNNEMEDE BOARD OF EDUCATIONRESOLUTION NO ___________
AUTHORIZING EXECUTIVE SESSION
WHEREAS while the Sen Byron M Baer Open Public Meetings Act (NJSA 104-6 et seq) requires allmeetings of the Runnemede Board of Education to be held in public NJSA 104-12(b) sets forth nine (9)types of matters that may lawfully be discussed in ldquoExecutive Sessionrdquo ie without the public beingpermitted to attend and
WHEREAS the Runnemede Board of Education has determined that _____ (insert number) issues arepermitted by NJSA 104-12(b) to be discussed without the public in attendance shall be discussed duringan Executive Session to be held on _________________________ 20____ at _______ PM and
WHEREAS the nine (9) exceptions to public meetings set forth in NJSA 104-12(b) are listed below andnext to each exception is a box within which the number of issues to be privately discussed that fall withinthat exception shall be written and after each exception is a space where additional information that willdisclose as much information about the discussion as possible without undermining the purpose of theexception shall be written
ldquo(1) Any matter which by express provision of Federal law State statute or rule of courtshall be rendered confidential or excluded from public discussionrdquo The legal citation to theprovision(s) at issue is__________________________ and the nature of the matter described asspecifically as possible without undermining the need for confidentiality is _______________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(2) Any matter in which the release of information would impair a right to receive fundsfrom the federal governmentrdquo The nature of the matter described as specifically as possiblewithout undermining the need for confidentiality is _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(3) Any material the disclosure of which constitutes an unwarranted invasion of individualprivacy such as any records data reports recommendations or other personal material ofany educational training social service medical health custodial child protectionrehabilitation legal defense welfare housing relocation insurance and similar program orinstitution operated by a public body pertaining to any specific individual admitted to orserved by such institution or program including but not limited to information relative tothe individuals personal and family circumstances and any material pertaining toadmission discharge treatment progress or condition of any individual unless theindividual concerned (or in the case of a minor or incompetent his guardian) shall requestin writing that the same be disclosed publiclyrdquo The nature of the matter described asspecifically as possible without undermining the need for confidentiality is______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(4) Any collective bargaining agreement or the terms and conditions of which are proposedfor inclusion in any collective bargaining agreement including the negotiation of terms andconditions with employees or representatives of employees of the public bodyrdquo The collectivebargaining contract(s) discussed are between the Board and ____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Exhibit Page 1Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 40 of 77
ldquo(5) Any matter involving the purchase lease or acquisition of real property with publicfunds the setting of bank rates or investment of public funds where it could adversely affectthe public interest if discussion of such matters were disclosedrdquo The nature of the matterdescribed as specifically as possible without undermining the need for confidentiality is____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(6) Any tactics and techniques utilized in protecting the safety and property of the publicprovided that their disclosure could impair such protection Any investigations of violationsor possible violations of the lawrdquo The nature of the matter described as specifically as possiblewithout undermining the need for confidentiality is ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(7) Any pending or anticipated litigation or contract negotiation in which the public body isor may become a party Any matters falling within the attorney-client privilege to the extentthat confidentiality is required in order for the attorney to exercise his ethicalduties as a lawyerrdquo The parties to and docket numbers of each item of litigation andor theparties to each contract discussed are __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ andnature of the discussion described as specifically as possible without undermining the need forconfidentiality is ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(8) Any matter involving the employment appointment termination of employment termsand conditions of employment evaluation of the performance promotion or disciplining ofany specific prospective public officer or employee or current public officer or employeeemployed or appointed by the public body unless all individual employees or appointees whoserights could be adversely affected request in writing that such matter or matters be discussed ata public meetingrdquo Subject to the balancing of the publicrsquos interest and the employeersquos privacyrights under South Jersey Publishing Co v New Jersey Expressway Authority 124 NJ 478 theemployee(s) and nature of the discussion described as specifically as possible withoutundermining the need for confidentiality are _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(9) Any deliberation of a public body occurring after a public hearing that may result in theimposition of a specific civil penalty upon the responding party or the suspension or loss of alicense or permit belonging to the responding party as a result of an act of omission forwhich the responding party bears responsibilityrdquo The nature of the matter described asspecifically as possible without undermining the need for confidentiality is______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
WHEREAS the length of the Executive Session is estimated to be ________ minutes after which the publicmeeting of the Board shall (circle one) reconvene and immediately adjourn or reconvene and proceed withbusiness
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Runnemede Board of Education will go into ExecutiveSession for only the above stated reasons
Exhibit Page 2Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 41 of 77
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board hereby declares that its discussion of the aforementionedsubject(s) will be made public at a time when the publicrsquos interest in disclosure is greater than any privacy orgovernmental interest being protected from disclosure For each of the above items the estimated date bywhich such disclosure can be made andor the occurrence that needs to take place before disclosure can bemade are listed below (attach separate sheet if necessary)
Subject of Discussion Estimated Date Necessary Occurrence
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Clerk at the present public meeting shall read aloud enough ofthis resolution so that members of the public in attendance can understand as precisely as possible thenature of the matters that will privately discussed
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Clerk on the next business day following this meeting shallfurnish a copy of this resolution to any member of the public who requests one at the fees allowed byNJSA 471A-1 et seq
_________________________________Board President
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS ATRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTIONAPPROVED BY THE RUNNEMEDE BOARD OF EDUCATION AT ITSPUBLIC MEETING HELD ON ______________________20___
_______________________________________Board Secretary
Exhibit Page 3Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 42 of 77
Exhibit Page 4Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 43 of 77
Exhibit Page 5Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 44 of 77
Exhibit Page 6Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 45 of 77
Exhibit Page 7Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 46 of 77
Exhibit Page 8Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 47 of 77
Exhibit Page 9Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 48 of 77
Subject Records RequestFrom John Paff ltpaffpoboxcomgtDate Sat 07 May 2011 161444 -0400To vcarmodyrunnemedeschoolsorgCC psternasgllawcom
Ms Carmody
Please accept this e-mail as my request for government records inaccordance with the Open Public Records Act (OPRA) and the commonlaw right of access Please respond and send all responsivedocuments to me via e-mail at paffpoboxcom If e-mail is notpossible please fax responses and responsive records to me at908-325-0129 Also I would appreciate it if you wouldacknowledge your receipt of this e-mail
Background
In response to a records request I recently received redactedexecutive session minutes for the following dates July 28 2010(first session) August 26 2010 February 2 2011 February 232011 (two sessions) and March 2 2011 Although Mr Stern providedme with a sheet entitled Documents Exempt From OPRA request thatpurports to explain these redactions I am still unclear as to whythe matter was redacted and whether it was lawfully redacted
First I dont understand references such as NJSA 471A-11(12)(c) The version of OPRA that I have (plus every other oneIve seen) does not have internal numbers within NJSA471A-11 Am I correct that NJSA 471A-11(12)(c) isintended to refer to the exemption for records in connection withcollective negotiations including documents and statements ofstrategy or negotiating position and that NJSA 471A-11(7)is intended to refer to any record within the attorney-clientprivilege This paragraph shall not be construed as exempting fromaccess attorney or consultant bills or invoices except that suchbills or invoices may be redacted to remove any informationprotected by the attorney-client privilege Please advise
Second even if I correctly corresponded the claimed exemptions tothe OPRA statute I have no way of knowing whether the mattersredacted are actually exempt from access When a custodiansuppresses any portion of any requested record NJSA471A-5(g) requires him or her to state the ldquospecific basisrdquo foreach suppressed element Beyond stating the ldquospecific basisrdquo foreach suppressed element he or she is required to ldquoproduce
Records Request
1 of 2 622011 810 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 49 of 77
specific reliable evidence sufficient to meet a statutorilyrecognized basis for confidentialityrdquo Courier News v HunterdonCounty Prosecutorrsquos Office 358 NJ Super 373 382-83 (App Div2003) Further he or she must explain each suppression in amanner that ldquowill enable other parties to assess the applicabilityof the privilege or protectionrdquo Paff v New Jersey Department ofLabor Board of Review 379 NJ Super 346 354-55 (2005)(quoting R 410-2(e))
Records requested
Runnemede Board of Education minutes for the following dates July28 2010 (728 pm session only) August 26 2010 February 22011 February 23 2011 (both sessions) and March 2 2011 Iwould like these minutes redacted as narrowly as possible if atall For each redaction I request a written explanation thatmeets the requirements of the case law cited above
cc Phil Stern
Records Request
2 of 2 622011 810 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 50 of 77
Subject Re Fwd Runnemede Board of Education Open PublicMeetings ActFrom John Paff ltpaffpoboxcomgtDate Mon 09 May 2011 134726 -0400To Nancy Ward ltnwardrunnemedeschoolsorggt
Thank you
On 592011 116 PM Nancy Ward wrote
Mr Paff
The Board has named me Custodian of Records Please direct allfuturecommunication to me The May 10 2011 meeting is theRe-organization ofthe Runnemede Board of Education The agenda is set and is verycomprehensive I intend to defer the letter and any discussionregardingits content to the next regular meeting the date of which willbe setat the re-organization tomorrow night In keeping with thedistrictsmeeting pattern that will be May 25 2011
Nancy BWard EdD
Superintendent of Schools
-----Original Message-----From John PaffSent 572011 42300 PMTo nwardrunnemedeschoolsorgCc vcarmodyrunnemedeschoolsorg psternasgllawcomSubject Fwd Runnemede Board of Education Open Public MeetingsAct
Here is another e-mail in case my original one should have beendirected to Ms Ward and not Ms Carmody
JP
-------- Original Message --------Subject Runnemede Board of Education Open Public Meetings ActDate Sat 07 May 2011 152319 -0400From John Paff
Re Fwd Runnemede Board of Education Open Public Meetings Act
1 of 2 622011 811 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 51 of 77
Reply-To paffpoboxcomTo vcarmodyrunnemedeschoolsorg psternasgllawcom
Ms Carmody and Mr Stern
Attached is a letter that I would like the Board to consider atits May10 2011 meeting Would you please a) acknowledge receipt of theletterand b) distribute it to all the Board members
Note that the last paragraph of the letter indicates that I willfilesuit against the Board if the issues in the letter arentaddressedSo if the Boards agenda for the May 10th meeting is so tightthat myletter cannot be accommodated please advise me of such andprovide ameeting date where my letter will be addressed so that I knowthat I amnot being ignored
Thank you
John Paff ChairmanNew Jersey Libertarian PartysOpen Government Advocacy Project
Re Fwd Runnemede Board of Education Open Public Meetings Act
2 of 2 622011 811 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 52 of 77
Subject OPRA RequestFrom Philip Stern ltpsternasgllawcomgtDate Fri 20 May 2011 161015 -0500To paffpoboxcom ltpaffpoboxcomgtCC Nancy Ward ltnwardrunnemedeschoolsorggt
Mr Paff please find attached to this email a response to your request forbusiness records Please note that in providing you with the attachedrecords the Runnemede Borough Board of Education waives no rightsregarding the attorney-client privilege Do not hesitate to call me if youhave any questions Phil Stern
Philip E SternAdams Stern Gutierrez amp Lattiboudere LLCThe Legal Center1037 Raymond Blvd Suite 710Newark New Jersey 07102(973) 735-2742 (office telephone)(201) 914-2415 (cellular telephone)(973) 735-2743 (office telefax)
May 20 Paff responsepdf
Content-DescriptionMay 20 Paffresponsepdf
Content-Type applicationpdf
Content-Encoding base64
OPRA Request
1 of 1 622011 815 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 53 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 54 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 55 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 56 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 57 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 58 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 59 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 60 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 61 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 62 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 63 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 64 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 65 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 66 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 67 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 68 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 69 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 70 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 71 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 72 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 73 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 74 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 75 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 76 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 77 of 77
- Civil Complaint
- Exhibits
-
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 21 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 22 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 23 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 24 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 25 of 77
Idled officials payout riles Runnemede
By BARBARA S ROTHSCHILD bull Courier-Post Staff bull March 5 2011
RUNNEMEDE mdash Although the school district is paying Business Administrator Kelly PetersBrazelton her full salary to stay home while paying for an interim employee RunnemedeSuperintendent Nancy Ward said it could have cost more not to have a separationagreement
New Jersey is a very litigious state she said In order to avoid litigation which neveris a good thing a separation agreement gives you a certain outcome
Brazelton a Deptford resident and the former business administrator for the SomerdalePublic School District began working for Runnemede schools in August 2008 Her mostrecent contract for July 1 2010 through June 30 is for $99465 plus benefits
But the relationship soured and the district would not comment on specifics citingconfidentiality
A letter from staff members written to Ward and the school board in July 2010 gaveexamples of a hostile work environment that they said was created by the businessadministrator
Brazelton could not be reached Her attorney Joseph Betley of Mount Laurel said hisclient signed the separation agreement in good faith
There was a disagreement between the board and Kelly he said It was resolved andboth sides decided to move on
She disputes any and all allegations regarding a hostile work environment It wassimply Kelly doing her job
The separation agreement and release dated Oct 20 stipulates Brazelton be placed ona paid leave of absence from Sept 23 to April 15 at which time she would irrevocablyresign
School board President Colleen Kurth said it was much easier to go with a separationagreement than pay more legal fees
She compared paying Brazelton to paying a teacher out sick while a substitute fills in
The job just has to go on Kurth said
Interim Business Administrator Valerie Carmody who retired from the same post in EastGreenwich last year was hired Dec 1 at $60 per hour 24 hours maximum per weekHer contract ends June 30
New Jersey School Boards Association spokesman Mike Yaple said such separationagreements are infrequent
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 26 of 77
No school board willingly enters into an agreement like this he insisted But eventhough its not a popular decision its the lesser of two evils
Residents unhappy about the districts handling of the situation include Dan Conard ajournalism student at Rowan University Conard writes a blog where he discusses schooldistrict and municipal matters To comment on this topic he filed Open Public RecordsAct (OPRA) document requests
I just wanted to get it out there so people know what is going on Conard said
Ward said she has no quarrel with the student but believes Brazeltons case is anunusual circumstance
It (the separation agreement) was the most responsible thing the district could havedone she insisted Was it a bitter pill to swallow It took the board (a while) beforethey felt it was something they could do but it makes the most sense
Ward said the part-time arrangement with Carmody is working out well and that as thedistrict improves efficiency it is unlikely another full-time business administrator will behired particularly when Executive County Superintendent Peggy Nicolosi has advisedagainst it
Among the options being considered are another part-time business administrator or ashared-service agreement with another district
Ward said she would have preferred the money being expended in this case be spent oneducational programs and teachers particularly this year
Although voters passed Runnemedes 2010-11 budget while many others were defeatedlast April the district of 853 students in K-8 lost six staffers and streamlined its gifted-and-talented program after state aid was cut
Ward also defended the decision to keep a maintenance techniciansupervisor positioncreated in 2008 noting it has saved at least $145000 each year
Mark Speck of Voorhees earns $50000 in the post Through June 2010 it was filled byDoug McGarry a former building and grounds supervisor in the Somerdale district Heearned $60000 in Runnemede but had more experience than Speck Ward said
Before Brazelton arrived in Runnemede the business administrator also served asmaintenance supervisor Ward said that actually cost the district more because it had topay outside maintenance workers sometimes for faulty work
Many things had been done to the facilities that were not to the boards satisfactionshe said That first year with our own maintenance person we saved $145000 becausewe hired a person who fixed things
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 27 of 77
Speck works with vendors going over bids and quotes and also does minor repairs thatno longer have to be paid for piecemeal Ward said the position is staying in the 2011-2012 budget adopted preliminarily on Wednesday
Hes the guy whos here at 4 am making sure weve got snow plows when we needthem Ward said Hes dirty and sweaty -- and hes excellent
Ward said the budget sent to the county includes a $78 annual tax increase for theowner of a home assessed at the $97800 borough average but does not cut staff orprograms
Kurth hopes to tweak the budget and lower the tax hike before it is introduced to thepublic on March 23 But she agreed the maintenance supervisor will stay
That was an investment on the part of the school district Kurth said
Reach Barbara S Rothschild at (856) 486-2416 or barothschildcamdengannettcom
--Comments
User Imageamonkeycoulddoit wroteThe mayor cant hear you because she doesnt even know how to turn on a computerNot that it was a requirement that the mayor should know how to use one I think theonly requirement is that they have a pulse And she does but barely372011 12406 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imageamonkeycoulddoit wroteTo sickofpolsnj it does seem that snoopysam has some inside information And whenyou say hows that mayors race looking I hope that you dont mean that someone fromthe disfunctional school board is going to run for mayor or council or some other electedposition considering the mess that they made on the school board372011 11832 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imageamonkeycoulddoit wroteIf the school board president had listened to staff when the hostil work enviroment issuestarted then she might not be in this pickle She should have spent the money on thelegal fees because if everything is true about the hostile enviroment then they wouldhave won the lawsuit hands down and not had to pay out anything and gotten their legalfees back Another example of elected officials not capable of doing the job they are inLets hope that some people come out of the woodwork to run for school board peoplewho care about the kids and the taxpayers372011 11309 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imageamonkeycoulddoit wrote
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 28 of 77
The school boad is not as inept as the mayor and council You dont have to be a collegegraduate or or even be able to read or write to get an elected position in runnemedeThe 2 new council members got elected because the are involved in the union andeveryone who supports the union came out to vote And the new mayor must have a lotof friends But now after the few months they have been in office it is clear to see thatthey are not able to handle the job Mayor14 is right that the people of Runnemedevoted because they thought they would get something in return for their vote but itlooks like they were wrong In the upcoming elections for school board and council votefor the person who will do the best job whether you like them or not Dont just vote forsomeone because you are told to372011 10214 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagethemayor14 wrotei am so glad this article was written and it clearly points out how inept the runnemedeboard of education actually is the board of education is not elected based on businessand education talent the elections are nothing more than a popularity contest i dontknow how other towns operate but runnemede boro is a total joke when it come toelections be it school board or general elections i wish everyone would get their headsout of their A$$ and truly investigate the school board canidates that are running forelection VOTE WITH YOUR HEAD NOT WITH YOUR HEART362011 91350 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagesavetheschools wroteSeveral people are running for the board for four open seats I signed a petition todayfor a new woman running Members are not paid If you live in Runnemede shopstewardyou have until Tuesday to get a petition submitted I asked and found out there is only 5people on average at the BOE meetings every month in Runnemede I hope more peoplestart to go I plan on it myself And we all need to go every month not just when weread negative press about our schools That is the only way we would all stay informedand not rely on the young man submitting OPRA requests Our town has always beenabout the kids and it needs to get back that way362011 80936 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser ImageShopsteward wroteWhy did it take one young man sending in OPRA requests to bring all this to lightWhy are you relying upon him to get to the bottom of it You say The other members(except for the one who was just arrested and resigned) are good people and didnothing wrong to the district and that might be true except for the fact that theyallowed that incredible salary and benefits to be given out and even though all kinds ofrumors were flying around it took an outsider with OPRA requests to bring this ghastlypimple to a head Sounds more like none of them are doing their jobs and should be outof office and off the payroll They should all just resign They arent doing the job thatwas assigned to them362011 32559 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Image
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 29 of 77
Shopsteward wroteA crime was committed here It began with a violation of the Publics trust by the peoplewho allowed this contract to be signed in the first place What a jokeHow many moreof these jobs are hidden in the budgets of our Schools There needs to be a thouroughcleaning of all thses tyeps of employees everywhere At the State County Municipaland Scool board level and the appointed Authorities too Everyone screams about theUnions but whenever you hear of some great big abuse it turns out the person wasnteven in the UnionClean up this mess first Mr Christie before yougo after the little guys It will save us all a lot more money362011 101606 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser ImageShopsteward wroteI still dont get itHow is a part time24 hr a week job worth so much This is aprime example of the waste that is giving the public workers a bad nameThe onlyproblem is it isnt some Union personIts management and its the same all over This isjust the tip of the iceberg they scream about the Unions but the real waste is in jobs likethis oneNo way this job or the thousands of others like it should be paid so well99465 PLUS BENEFITS incrediblethere should be a lawandthe person gets a pension based on that bloated salarytooThere should be other people losing their jobs not for theseperation aggreement but for letting this evenhappen352011 101125 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagethesplits wroteI guess this is Runnemedes version of a shared service352011 73450 PM
User Imagethesplits wroteLooks like its the same old Runnemede and I thought we voted for change Mayor352011 73202 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagesavetheschools wroteFrom what I understand and I live in town the board went into this separationagreement because the BA would have had a potential lawsuit and it would have costthe school district and tax payers a ton of money Much more than they are spendingnow And yes it is one school board member who was apparently corrupt Just one Theyoung man who was mentioned in the article has been OPRA requesting items and willget to the bottom of this situation with the former BA and the certain board memberBut that is just one person The other members (except for the one who was justarrested and resigned) are good people and did nothing wrong to the district Thisformer BA and her friend who was hired as the maint supervisor have been a hot topicfor a few years Ask the employees they were awful and needed to go It is awful thatthis money was not spent on our children It was a trainwreck from the beginning and ifI recall correctly when the hiring took place only one of the members voted no and that
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 30 of 77
was the local high school teacher metioned in another post Runnemede schools arefantastic and maybe the new people running for election will get some answers andmake some changes And maybe the BOE member who was mentioned by employees asbeing the reason why there could be a possible lawsuit should just resign I understandadmin make good money but they also need to be accountable for their actions and ifthe BA made a hostile environment and was supported by one BOE member both shouldbe gonenot just the BA352011 33207 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagecookmom wroteWhere is Gov Christies veto power352011 30321 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagecookmom wroteThis all happened with a local police officer and a FOP member and local high schoolteacher and member of the NJEA on the board The Runnemede Board is looking alotlike the DRPA and was this group picked by the new Mayor352011 30042 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagesickofpolsnj wroteThe real truth is the Board of Education member and Brazelton and the unethicalsituation that THEY created The questionable contracts and underhanded deals There isa certain Board Member that hopes that this ends here well it doesnt There is not aTeacher or employee in Runnemede Schools that would defend Brazelton same goes forSomerdale And many are willing to bring out MANY of the things that Brazelton did todestroy the district The ENTIRE Runnemede School Community is thrilled that Brazeltonis gone Snoopysam is clearly one of two people Kelly or the Board Member shouldwe name names Hows that Mayors race looking352011 114254 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser ImageShopsteward wrote$99465 plus benefits How much does she pay for her share of those benefitsor are they free to her Her replacement only works 24 hours a week are we being toldthat she got that much money for a part time job What is the matter with theidiots that hired her to begin withNo one should get that kind of money for a part timeThat is an awful lot of money for that kind of job We should not be surprised at all Thiskind of thing is everywhere in Camden CountyIts the NORMAL way of doingbusiness352011 113922 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagelookfar111 wroteYep same old story hire someone for $98000 when 10 equally qualified people woulddo it for 60k with a 20 year top out at 75 k Then a sweetheart adios gift And the cherry
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 31 of 77
on top Another tax increase for the people God I hate what the democrat machinehave done to this once great state352011 111649 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser ImageSnoopysam wrotesickofpolsnj you must be on ot those employees that Brazelton held accountable forHER actions You are right there is so much more to this story and when the real truthscome out there will be some emplopyeesadministratorsboard members hanging theirheads in shame Talk about wasting taxpayer dollars take a look at some of the lazyincompetent employees that Brazelton had to deal withand their HUGE mistakes thathad to be corrected which cost the taxpayers thousands upon thousands of dollars352011 94250 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagesickofpolsnj wroteYou are exactly correct A teacher would never get a sweatheart deal like this I wonderwhich Board Member it was that was mentioned in that letter Did you read the blog thatthis all came out on it has way more details than this articlehttpdansviewrunnemedewordpresscom352011 92934 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagesickofpolsnj wroteOnly thing is Runnemede never had these issues Somerdale had the same EXACT issueswith Brazelton Administrators arent allowed to comment however talk to the teachersand employees off record they will tell you all about Kelly352011 92726 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagesickofpolsnj wroteThere is so much more to this story I hope the CP will run a follow up 1 Look into therealtionship and hiring surrounding Doug the maintenance supervisor 2 Check intoBrazeltons past employment Somerdale Schools 3 Brazelton is rumored to be hired atthe completion of the settlement in Deptford 4 Look into unethical practices between aBoard Member and Brazelton 5 And what about the other Board member that wasrecently charged with a serious crime352011 92315 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imageicallbullschit wroteOnce again the government tries to pin their mistakes on an individual when they screwup royally What the paper fails to report is the other side Maybe years and years ofmismanagement and patronage were uncovered and it became a hostile environmentwhen people got called on their actions and the same old routine was stopped Maybethe school board realized it would be cheaper to pay one than to pay many for theirmistakes Maybe the school board was willing to pay in order to keep their dirty littlesecrets covered up Maybe the resident should look deeper into the actions of the schoolboard and the rest of the administration Maybe I am wrong but it seems that the board
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 32 of 77
got called on some issues and now they are attacking one individual to cover theirtracks They seem to be acting like the GREAT WIZARD OF OZ Pay no attention to theidiots behind the curtain we are the all powerful and all knowing school board Pull backthe curtain people because there are people behind there that are faking their waythrough and going to wind up costing the district millions Just saying352011 85642 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagecookmom wroteSchool board President Colleen Kurth said it was much easier to go with a separationagreement than pay more legal fees She compared paying Brazelton to paying ateacher out sick while a substitute fills in The job just has to go on Kurth said I amconfused A teacher out SICK is NOT the same as a HOSTILE work enviorment How cana medical condition be compared to a person being accused of a hostile workenviorment A teacher would be REQUIRED to use their sick days~ since this is beingcompared to an illness ~was Brazelton REQUIRED to give up her sickvacation pay orwas that part of the dealWas she also paid for those days Wouldnt we all love to becollecting a salary from two towns As now she is being paid by Runnemde AND acurrent SCHOOL district where she is currently employed THIS is the waste in ourSchool districts352011 83552 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imageneocon wroteShe is part of the Protected Classes All you need to know is that she is better thanyou so just keep moveing along Nothing to see here352011 81912 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report Abuse
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 33 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 34 of 77
New Jersey Libertarian PartyOpen Government Advocacy Project
John Paff Chairman
PO Box 5424
Somerset NJ 08875-5424
Phone 732-873-1251 - Fax 908-325-0129
Email lpsmcpoboxcom
May 7 2011
Hon Colleen Kurth President and members of the
Runnemede Board of Education
505 W Third Ave
Runnemede NJ 08078 (via e-mail to vcarmodyrunnemedeschoolsorg )
Dear President Kurth and Board members
I write both individually and on behalf the New Jersey Libertarian Partys Open
Government Advocacy Project to comment on 1) the manner in which the Board of Education
goes into nonpublic (ie executive or closed) session and 2) the level of detail contained within
the Boardrsquos executive session minutes
Issue 1 Executive Session resolutions
As you are aware the Senator Byron M Baer Open Public Meetings Act requires public
bodies such as the Runnemede Board of Education to publicly pass a resolution before
excluding the public from a meeting The statute that requires the resolution states
NJSA 104-13mdashClosed meetings resolution to conduct
No public body shall exclude the public from any meeting to discuss any
matter described in subsection 7 b (104-12) until the public body shall
first adopt a resolution at a meeting to which the public shall be admitted
a Stating the general nature of the subject to be discussed and
b Stating as precisely as possible the time when and the circumstances
under which the discussion conducted in closed session of the public body
can be disclosed to the public
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 35 of 77
2
By way of a recent records request I received resolutions which purport to authorize
executive sessions intended to be held by the Board of Education on July 28 2010 (2 sessions)
August 20 2010 February 2 1011 February 23 2011 (2 sessions) and March 2 2011 Those
resolutions which are virtually identical to each other state
Executive Session to discuss student matters personnel contractual and
legal matters [time and a statement as to whether action will be
taken]
[identity of maker of motion etc]
Resolved that pursuant to Section 8 of the Public Meetings Act the public
shall be excluded from that portion of the meeting involving the discussion
of personnel legal and contractual matters Further resolved that
discussion of such subject matters discussed in Executive Session can be
disclosed to public upon official action if any at the conclusion of the
executive session or at a public session at some later date
I dont think that this form of resolution satisfies NJSA 104-13 because it gives the
public no real sense of what is being privately discussed1 To paraphrase the highest court of of
another state a body which only announces ldquolegal mattersrdquo or ldquopersonnel negotiationsrdquo for
going into executive session has said nothing It might has well have stated to the audience
ldquoLadies and gentlemen we are going into executive sessionrdquo and stopped there Hinds County
Board of Supervisors v Common Cause of Mississippi 551 So2d 107 114 (MS 1989)
Of course there can be no dispute that the Board of Education often has legitimate
reasons to meet in nonpublic session Among these reasons is the need to prevent the adverse
parties in litigation or contract negotiations from gaining an unfair advantage and to allow
members of the governing body to debate and deliberate personnel matters without public
scrutiny or participation But the need to discuss matters privately should not prevent the
public from being informed as precisely as possible of the topics that are being privately
discussed
For example suppose that Runnemede Board is being sued by a Mr Jones who was
injured after he slipped and fell on what he claims to be negligently maintained school
property Since the lawsuit is already a public record there is no public purpose served by
vaguely describing a private discussion of it as ldquostudent matters personnel contractual and
legal mattersrdquo Rather the resolution should at the very least describe the private discussion as
1 In January 2007 when I most recently litigated this issue Middlesex County Superior Court Judge Alexander P
Waugh issued a written decision in which he agreed with other court decisions that closed session resolutions
should contain as much information as is consistent with full public knowledge without doing any harm to the
public interest Judge Waughs decision and other case documents are on the Web at
httpogtfarchiveorgOGTFMonroeBOEWebreadypdf
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 36 of 77
3
ldquoDiscussion of slip and fall negligence suit Jones v Runnemede Board Docket No CAM-L-
012345-11rdquo This way the public has a very good sense of what the Boardrsquos private discussion is
about while the ability of the Board to develop its lawsuit strategy is not undermined
Using the same example suppose that Jonesrsquo attorney sent the Boardrsquos attorney an offer
to fully settle the lawsuit upon the Boardrsquos payment of $20000 While the Board would
obviously need to discuss how to respond to the offer in private lest Jones or his attorney
would be in the audience witnessing the discussion there is no reason why the public cannot be
informed in the NJSA 104-13 resolution that the Board will meet in private to discuss ldquoa
settlement offer received from the Plaintiff in the slip and fall negligence suit known as Jones v
Runnemede Board Docket No CAM-L-012345-11 in which the Plaintiff offers to settle the suit
in exchange for the Board paying him $20000rdquo While it may initially seem that this would
provide ldquotoo muchrdquo information to the public this concern disappears once it is realized that
the sole purpose of the exception2 that allows litigation matters to be discussed in private is to
keep the adverse party to the litigation in the dark regarding the Boardrsquos position3 Since in this
example the adverse party (ie Jones) already knows that he offered to settle the lawsuit for
$20000 there is no legitimate reason why the public should not also know of the tendered
settlement offer
As another example suppose that a personnel matter such as whether or not a Mrs
Smith a public works employee should be disciplined because of repeatedly arriving late to
work is to be discussed in closed session In such a case the amount of detail set forth in the
NJSA 104-13 resolution should correspond to the amount of detail that the Board and its
attorney predict will be publicly disclosed in the closed meetingrsquos minutes when those minutes
are made public
The standard that the Board is to use when determining how much information about a
personnel matter is to be disclosed in the closed sessionrsquos minutes is set forth in South Jersey
Publishing Company Inc v New Jersey Expressway Authority 124 NJ 478 (1991) That
standard is that a) the public needs information if it is properly fulfill its role of evaluating the
wisdom of governmental action or a decision not to act b) that New Jerseys strong public
policy requires that a public bodyrsquos actions and decisions to not act be disclosed in the bodys
closed meeting minutes along with sufficient facts and information to permit the public to
understand and appraise the reasonableness of the bodys determination and c) to the extent a
cognizable privacy interest may be compromised by the required disclosure the extent of
disclosure may be modified through redactions of the minutes provided the public interest in
disclosure is not subverted
2 NJSA104-12(b)(7) is to prevent adverse parties to litigation and contracts from learning the details of the
public bodyrsquos negotiation tactics and litigation strategy3 See the discussion in Paff v Washington Township Docket No MER-L-2205-07 and Nevin v Asbury Park City
Board 2005 WL 2847974 (App Div November 1 2005) which are on-line at
httpogtfarchiveorgOGTFWashingtonpdf (Nevin begins at page 44 of the PDF file at the link)
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 37 of 77
4
Thus regardless of whether the Board disciplines Ms Smith or chooses to not impose
discipline due to her lateness the outcome should be recorded in the closed meeting minutes
The question of whether that entry in the minutes should be redacted before the minutes are
made public requires a balancing of Ms Smithrsquos interest in keeping the disciplinary matter
private against the publicrsquos interest in effectively monitoring the Board If the Board with
counselrsquos advice determines after balancing these interests that the outcome will be published
unredacted in the closed sessionrsquos minutes (ie if the minutes will disclose to the public eg that
ldquoMs Smith was suspended for three days on account of her habitual latenessrdquo) then the exact
nature of the matter (ie that ldquothe Board will discuss disciplining Ms Smith for excessive
latenessrdquo) should be set forth in the closed meetingrsquos NJSA 104-13 resolution Inversely if the
Board determines that Ms Smithrsquos privacy interest exceeds the publicrsquos right to know then less
information (eg ldquothe Board will discuss disciplining an employee for excessive latenessrdquo)
should be set forth in the closed meetingrsquos NJSA 104-13 resolution
In other words if the officer or employee being discussed doesnt have a privacy interest
sufficient to withstand a citizens request for the executive session minutes why should not the
public know the topic of the executive session prior to it occurring
Irsquove attached as Exhibit pages 1 -3 is a model resolution that I would like the Board to
use in the future
Issue 2 Executive Session minutes
Attached as Exhibit Page 4 as an example are the Boardrsquos July 28 2010 executive session
minutes It is troubling that a meeting that lasted over an hour is being summed up in a single
sentence ldquoMr Phil Stern addressed the Board of Education about personnel issuesrdquo These
minutes are not ldquoreasonably comprehensiblerdquo as required by NJSA 104-14
The purpose of closed meeting minutes is not merely to inform the public of whatoccurred during the private session but also to create a record for the Board membersthemselves A Board member who is newly elected in 2012 should be able by referringsolely to the minutes to figure out what issues the Board addressed during any previouslyheld closed meeting This hypothetical Board member after reading the July 28 2010closed minutes could not possibly figure out which employees or officials Mr Stern wastalking about
Better practice would be to record closed minutes that are much morecomprehensive but to redact that material that must be shielded from public view Forexample the minutes could have said
Mr Stern addressed the Board of Education about the habitualtardiness of 2nd grade teacher Mary Doe and her propensity to eatlibrary paste and scream hysterically during fire drills Herecommended that she be sent for psychiatric evaluation
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 38 of 77
5
Of course if a member of the public requested these hypothetical minutes the Boardmay need to redact them in order to protect privacy interests The point however is thatregardless of whether unredacted closed meeting minutes are ever released to the publicthey should contain sufficient details so that the Board members themselves can monthsor years later know what was discussed
Attached as Exhibit pages 5 ndash 9 is an order recently entered in Schmidt et al v City of
Gloucester City et al Docket No CAM-L-1287-11 As you can see paraA(3) supports my position
that the Boardrsquos minutes are not ldquoreasonably comprehensiblerdquo as required by law
Conclusion
Since some public bodies do not take my requests for Meetings Act compliance seriously
I regret having to inform the Board that I will sue for declaratory and injunctive relief in
accordance with NJSA 104-16 unless I receive assurances from the Boardmdashwithin a few days
after its May 10 2011 meetingmdashthat it will work in good faith to improve the amount of
information in both its closed session resolutions and minutes If the Boardrsquos agenda is already
set for the May 10 2011 meeting please at least acknowledge this letter and let me know the
date of the meeting at which it will be considered
Thank you very much for your attention to this matter I look forward to hearing from
you
Sincerely
John Paff
cc Philip E Stern Esq w enc (via e-mail to psternasgllawcom )
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 39 of 77
RUNNEMEDE BOARD OF EDUCATIONRESOLUTION NO ___________
AUTHORIZING EXECUTIVE SESSION
WHEREAS while the Sen Byron M Baer Open Public Meetings Act (NJSA 104-6 et seq) requires allmeetings of the Runnemede Board of Education to be held in public NJSA 104-12(b) sets forth nine (9)types of matters that may lawfully be discussed in ldquoExecutive Sessionrdquo ie without the public beingpermitted to attend and
WHEREAS the Runnemede Board of Education has determined that _____ (insert number) issues arepermitted by NJSA 104-12(b) to be discussed without the public in attendance shall be discussed duringan Executive Session to be held on _________________________ 20____ at _______ PM and
WHEREAS the nine (9) exceptions to public meetings set forth in NJSA 104-12(b) are listed below andnext to each exception is a box within which the number of issues to be privately discussed that fall withinthat exception shall be written and after each exception is a space where additional information that willdisclose as much information about the discussion as possible without undermining the purpose of theexception shall be written
ldquo(1) Any matter which by express provision of Federal law State statute or rule of courtshall be rendered confidential or excluded from public discussionrdquo The legal citation to theprovision(s) at issue is__________________________ and the nature of the matter described asspecifically as possible without undermining the need for confidentiality is _______________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(2) Any matter in which the release of information would impair a right to receive fundsfrom the federal governmentrdquo The nature of the matter described as specifically as possiblewithout undermining the need for confidentiality is _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(3) Any material the disclosure of which constitutes an unwarranted invasion of individualprivacy such as any records data reports recommendations or other personal material ofany educational training social service medical health custodial child protectionrehabilitation legal defense welfare housing relocation insurance and similar program orinstitution operated by a public body pertaining to any specific individual admitted to orserved by such institution or program including but not limited to information relative tothe individuals personal and family circumstances and any material pertaining toadmission discharge treatment progress or condition of any individual unless theindividual concerned (or in the case of a minor or incompetent his guardian) shall requestin writing that the same be disclosed publiclyrdquo The nature of the matter described asspecifically as possible without undermining the need for confidentiality is______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(4) Any collective bargaining agreement or the terms and conditions of which are proposedfor inclusion in any collective bargaining agreement including the negotiation of terms andconditions with employees or representatives of employees of the public bodyrdquo The collectivebargaining contract(s) discussed are between the Board and ____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Exhibit Page 1Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 40 of 77
ldquo(5) Any matter involving the purchase lease or acquisition of real property with publicfunds the setting of bank rates or investment of public funds where it could adversely affectthe public interest if discussion of such matters were disclosedrdquo The nature of the matterdescribed as specifically as possible without undermining the need for confidentiality is____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(6) Any tactics and techniques utilized in protecting the safety and property of the publicprovided that their disclosure could impair such protection Any investigations of violationsor possible violations of the lawrdquo The nature of the matter described as specifically as possiblewithout undermining the need for confidentiality is ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(7) Any pending or anticipated litigation or contract negotiation in which the public body isor may become a party Any matters falling within the attorney-client privilege to the extentthat confidentiality is required in order for the attorney to exercise his ethicalduties as a lawyerrdquo The parties to and docket numbers of each item of litigation andor theparties to each contract discussed are __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ andnature of the discussion described as specifically as possible without undermining the need forconfidentiality is ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(8) Any matter involving the employment appointment termination of employment termsand conditions of employment evaluation of the performance promotion or disciplining ofany specific prospective public officer or employee or current public officer or employeeemployed or appointed by the public body unless all individual employees or appointees whoserights could be adversely affected request in writing that such matter or matters be discussed ata public meetingrdquo Subject to the balancing of the publicrsquos interest and the employeersquos privacyrights under South Jersey Publishing Co v New Jersey Expressway Authority 124 NJ 478 theemployee(s) and nature of the discussion described as specifically as possible withoutundermining the need for confidentiality are _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(9) Any deliberation of a public body occurring after a public hearing that may result in theimposition of a specific civil penalty upon the responding party or the suspension or loss of alicense or permit belonging to the responding party as a result of an act of omission forwhich the responding party bears responsibilityrdquo The nature of the matter described asspecifically as possible without undermining the need for confidentiality is______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
WHEREAS the length of the Executive Session is estimated to be ________ minutes after which the publicmeeting of the Board shall (circle one) reconvene and immediately adjourn or reconvene and proceed withbusiness
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Runnemede Board of Education will go into ExecutiveSession for only the above stated reasons
Exhibit Page 2Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 41 of 77
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board hereby declares that its discussion of the aforementionedsubject(s) will be made public at a time when the publicrsquos interest in disclosure is greater than any privacy orgovernmental interest being protected from disclosure For each of the above items the estimated date bywhich such disclosure can be made andor the occurrence that needs to take place before disclosure can bemade are listed below (attach separate sheet if necessary)
Subject of Discussion Estimated Date Necessary Occurrence
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Clerk at the present public meeting shall read aloud enough ofthis resolution so that members of the public in attendance can understand as precisely as possible thenature of the matters that will privately discussed
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Clerk on the next business day following this meeting shallfurnish a copy of this resolution to any member of the public who requests one at the fees allowed byNJSA 471A-1 et seq
_________________________________Board President
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS ATRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTIONAPPROVED BY THE RUNNEMEDE BOARD OF EDUCATION AT ITSPUBLIC MEETING HELD ON ______________________20___
_______________________________________Board Secretary
Exhibit Page 3Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 42 of 77
Exhibit Page 4Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 43 of 77
Exhibit Page 5Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 44 of 77
Exhibit Page 6Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 45 of 77
Exhibit Page 7Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 46 of 77
Exhibit Page 8Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 47 of 77
Exhibit Page 9Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 48 of 77
Subject Records RequestFrom John Paff ltpaffpoboxcomgtDate Sat 07 May 2011 161444 -0400To vcarmodyrunnemedeschoolsorgCC psternasgllawcom
Ms Carmody
Please accept this e-mail as my request for government records inaccordance with the Open Public Records Act (OPRA) and the commonlaw right of access Please respond and send all responsivedocuments to me via e-mail at paffpoboxcom If e-mail is notpossible please fax responses and responsive records to me at908-325-0129 Also I would appreciate it if you wouldacknowledge your receipt of this e-mail
Background
In response to a records request I recently received redactedexecutive session minutes for the following dates July 28 2010(first session) August 26 2010 February 2 2011 February 232011 (two sessions) and March 2 2011 Although Mr Stern providedme with a sheet entitled Documents Exempt From OPRA request thatpurports to explain these redactions I am still unclear as to whythe matter was redacted and whether it was lawfully redacted
First I dont understand references such as NJSA 471A-11(12)(c) The version of OPRA that I have (plus every other oneIve seen) does not have internal numbers within NJSA471A-11 Am I correct that NJSA 471A-11(12)(c) isintended to refer to the exemption for records in connection withcollective negotiations including documents and statements ofstrategy or negotiating position and that NJSA 471A-11(7)is intended to refer to any record within the attorney-clientprivilege This paragraph shall not be construed as exempting fromaccess attorney or consultant bills or invoices except that suchbills or invoices may be redacted to remove any informationprotected by the attorney-client privilege Please advise
Second even if I correctly corresponded the claimed exemptions tothe OPRA statute I have no way of knowing whether the mattersredacted are actually exempt from access When a custodiansuppresses any portion of any requested record NJSA471A-5(g) requires him or her to state the ldquospecific basisrdquo foreach suppressed element Beyond stating the ldquospecific basisrdquo foreach suppressed element he or she is required to ldquoproduce
Records Request
1 of 2 622011 810 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 49 of 77
specific reliable evidence sufficient to meet a statutorilyrecognized basis for confidentialityrdquo Courier News v HunterdonCounty Prosecutorrsquos Office 358 NJ Super 373 382-83 (App Div2003) Further he or she must explain each suppression in amanner that ldquowill enable other parties to assess the applicabilityof the privilege or protectionrdquo Paff v New Jersey Department ofLabor Board of Review 379 NJ Super 346 354-55 (2005)(quoting R 410-2(e))
Records requested
Runnemede Board of Education minutes for the following dates July28 2010 (728 pm session only) August 26 2010 February 22011 February 23 2011 (both sessions) and March 2 2011 Iwould like these minutes redacted as narrowly as possible if atall For each redaction I request a written explanation thatmeets the requirements of the case law cited above
cc Phil Stern
Records Request
2 of 2 622011 810 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 50 of 77
Subject Re Fwd Runnemede Board of Education Open PublicMeetings ActFrom John Paff ltpaffpoboxcomgtDate Mon 09 May 2011 134726 -0400To Nancy Ward ltnwardrunnemedeschoolsorggt
Thank you
On 592011 116 PM Nancy Ward wrote
Mr Paff
The Board has named me Custodian of Records Please direct allfuturecommunication to me The May 10 2011 meeting is theRe-organization ofthe Runnemede Board of Education The agenda is set and is verycomprehensive I intend to defer the letter and any discussionregardingits content to the next regular meeting the date of which willbe setat the re-organization tomorrow night In keeping with thedistrictsmeeting pattern that will be May 25 2011
Nancy BWard EdD
Superintendent of Schools
-----Original Message-----From John PaffSent 572011 42300 PMTo nwardrunnemedeschoolsorgCc vcarmodyrunnemedeschoolsorg psternasgllawcomSubject Fwd Runnemede Board of Education Open Public MeetingsAct
Here is another e-mail in case my original one should have beendirected to Ms Ward and not Ms Carmody
JP
-------- Original Message --------Subject Runnemede Board of Education Open Public Meetings ActDate Sat 07 May 2011 152319 -0400From John Paff
Re Fwd Runnemede Board of Education Open Public Meetings Act
1 of 2 622011 811 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 51 of 77
Reply-To paffpoboxcomTo vcarmodyrunnemedeschoolsorg psternasgllawcom
Ms Carmody and Mr Stern
Attached is a letter that I would like the Board to consider atits May10 2011 meeting Would you please a) acknowledge receipt of theletterand b) distribute it to all the Board members
Note that the last paragraph of the letter indicates that I willfilesuit against the Board if the issues in the letter arentaddressedSo if the Boards agenda for the May 10th meeting is so tightthat myletter cannot be accommodated please advise me of such andprovide ameeting date where my letter will be addressed so that I knowthat I amnot being ignored
Thank you
John Paff ChairmanNew Jersey Libertarian PartysOpen Government Advocacy Project
Re Fwd Runnemede Board of Education Open Public Meetings Act
2 of 2 622011 811 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 52 of 77
Subject OPRA RequestFrom Philip Stern ltpsternasgllawcomgtDate Fri 20 May 2011 161015 -0500To paffpoboxcom ltpaffpoboxcomgtCC Nancy Ward ltnwardrunnemedeschoolsorggt
Mr Paff please find attached to this email a response to your request forbusiness records Please note that in providing you with the attachedrecords the Runnemede Borough Board of Education waives no rightsregarding the attorney-client privilege Do not hesitate to call me if youhave any questions Phil Stern
Philip E SternAdams Stern Gutierrez amp Lattiboudere LLCThe Legal Center1037 Raymond Blvd Suite 710Newark New Jersey 07102(973) 735-2742 (office telephone)(201) 914-2415 (cellular telephone)(973) 735-2743 (office telefax)
May 20 Paff responsepdf
Content-DescriptionMay 20 Paffresponsepdf
Content-Type applicationpdf
Content-Encoding base64
OPRA Request
1 of 1 622011 815 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 53 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 54 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 55 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 56 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 57 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 58 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 59 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 60 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 61 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 62 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 63 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 64 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 65 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 66 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 67 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 68 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 69 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 70 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 71 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 72 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 73 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 74 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 75 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 76 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 77 of 77
- Civil Complaint
- Exhibits
-
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 22 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 23 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 24 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 25 of 77
Idled officials payout riles Runnemede
By BARBARA S ROTHSCHILD bull Courier-Post Staff bull March 5 2011
RUNNEMEDE mdash Although the school district is paying Business Administrator Kelly PetersBrazelton her full salary to stay home while paying for an interim employee RunnemedeSuperintendent Nancy Ward said it could have cost more not to have a separationagreement
New Jersey is a very litigious state she said In order to avoid litigation which neveris a good thing a separation agreement gives you a certain outcome
Brazelton a Deptford resident and the former business administrator for the SomerdalePublic School District began working for Runnemede schools in August 2008 Her mostrecent contract for July 1 2010 through June 30 is for $99465 plus benefits
But the relationship soured and the district would not comment on specifics citingconfidentiality
A letter from staff members written to Ward and the school board in July 2010 gaveexamples of a hostile work environment that they said was created by the businessadministrator
Brazelton could not be reached Her attorney Joseph Betley of Mount Laurel said hisclient signed the separation agreement in good faith
There was a disagreement between the board and Kelly he said It was resolved andboth sides decided to move on
She disputes any and all allegations regarding a hostile work environment It wassimply Kelly doing her job
The separation agreement and release dated Oct 20 stipulates Brazelton be placed ona paid leave of absence from Sept 23 to April 15 at which time she would irrevocablyresign
School board President Colleen Kurth said it was much easier to go with a separationagreement than pay more legal fees
She compared paying Brazelton to paying a teacher out sick while a substitute fills in
The job just has to go on Kurth said
Interim Business Administrator Valerie Carmody who retired from the same post in EastGreenwich last year was hired Dec 1 at $60 per hour 24 hours maximum per weekHer contract ends June 30
New Jersey School Boards Association spokesman Mike Yaple said such separationagreements are infrequent
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 26 of 77
No school board willingly enters into an agreement like this he insisted But eventhough its not a popular decision its the lesser of two evils
Residents unhappy about the districts handling of the situation include Dan Conard ajournalism student at Rowan University Conard writes a blog where he discusses schooldistrict and municipal matters To comment on this topic he filed Open Public RecordsAct (OPRA) document requests
I just wanted to get it out there so people know what is going on Conard said
Ward said she has no quarrel with the student but believes Brazeltons case is anunusual circumstance
It (the separation agreement) was the most responsible thing the district could havedone she insisted Was it a bitter pill to swallow It took the board (a while) beforethey felt it was something they could do but it makes the most sense
Ward said the part-time arrangement with Carmody is working out well and that as thedistrict improves efficiency it is unlikely another full-time business administrator will behired particularly when Executive County Superintendent Peggy Nicolosi has advisedagainst it
Among the options being considered are another part-time business administrator or ashared-service agreement with another district
Ward said she would have preferred the money being expended in this case be spent oneducational programs and teachers particularly this year
Although voters passed Runnemedes 2010-11 budget while many others were defeatedlast April the district of 853 students in K-8 lost six staffers and streamlined its gifted-and-talented program after state aid was cut
Ward also defended the decision to keep a maintenance techniciansupervisor positioncreated in 2008 noting it has saved at least $145000 each year
Mark Speck of Voorhees earns $50000 in the post Through June 2010 it was filled byDoug McGarry a former building and grounds supervisor in the Somerdale district Heearned $60000 in Runnemede but had more experience than Speck Ward said
Before Brazelton arrived in Runnemede the business administrator also served asmaintenance supervisor Ward said that actually cost the district more because it had topay outside maintenance workers sometimes for faulty work
Many things had been done to the facilities that were not to the boards satisfactionshe said That first year with our own maintenance person we saved $145000 becausewe hired a person who fixed things
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 27 of 77
Speck works with vendors going over bids and quotes and also does minor repairs thatno longer have to be paid for piecemeal Ward said the position is staying in the 2011-2012 budget adopted preliminarily on Wednesday
Hes the guy whos here at 4 am making sure weve got snow plows when we needthem Ward said Hes dirty and sweaty -- and hes excellent
Ward said the budget sent to the county includes a $78 annual tax increase for theowner of a home assessed at the $97800 borough average but does not cut staff orprograms
Kurth hopes to tweak the budget and lower the tax hike before it is introduced to thepublic on March 23 But she agreed the maintenance supervisor will stay
That was an investment on the part of the school district Kurth said
Reach Barbara S Rothschild at (856) 486-2416 or barothschildcamdengannettcom
--Comments
User Imageamonkeycoulddoit wroteThe mayor cant hear you because she doesnt even know how to turn on a computerNot that it was a requirement that the mayor should know how to use one I think theonly requirement is that they have a pulse And she does but barely372011 12406 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imageamonkeycoulddoit wroteTo sickofpolsnj it does seem that snoopysam has some inside information And whenyou say hows that mayors race looking I hope that you dont mean that someone fromthe disfunctional school board is going to run for mayor or council or some other electedposition considering the mess that they made on the school board372011 11832 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imageamonkeycoulddoit wroteIf the school board president had listened to staff when the hostil work enviroment issuestarted then she might not be in this pickle She should have spent the money on thelegal fees because if everything is true about the hostile enviroment then they wouldhave won the lawsuit hands down and not had to pay out anything and gotten their legalfees back Another example of elected officials not capable of doing the job they are inLets hope that some people come out of the woodwork to run for school board peoplewho care about the kids and the taxpayers372011 11309 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imageamonkeycoulddoit wrote
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 28 of 77
The school boad is not as inept as the mayor and council You dont have to be a collegegraduate or or even be able to read or write to get an elected position in runnemedeThe 2 new council members got elected because the are involved in the union andeveryone who supports the union came out to vote And the new mayor must have a lotof friends But now after the few months they have been in office it is clear to see thatthey are not able to handle the job Mayor14 is right that the people of Runnemedevoted because they thought they would get something in return for their vote but itlooks like they were wrong In the upcoming elections for school board and council votefor the person who will do the best job whether you like them or not Dont just vote forsomeone because you are told to372011 10214 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagethemayor14 wrotei am so glad this article was written and it clearly points out how inept the runnemedeboard of education actually is the board of education is not elected based on businessand education talent the elections are nothing more than a popularity contest i dontknow how other towns operate but runnemede boro is a total joke when it come toelections be it school board or general elections i wish everyone would get their headsout of their A$$ and truly investigate the school board canidates that are running forelection VOTE WITH YOUR HEAD NOT WITH YOUR HEART362011 91350 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagesavetheschools wroteSeveral people are running for the board for four open seats I signed a petition todayfor a new woman running Members are not paid If you live in Runnemede shopstewardyou have until Tuesday to get a petition submitted I asked and found out there is only 5people on average at the BOE meetings every month in Runnemede I hope more peoplestart to go I plan on it myself And we all need to go every month not just when weread negative press about our schools That is the only way we would all stay informedand not rely on the young man submitting OPRA requests Our town has always beenabout the kids and it needs to get back that way362011 80936 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser ImageShopsteward wroteWhy did it take one young man sending in OPRA requests to bring all this to lightWhy are you relying upon him to get to the bottom of it You say The other members(except for the one who was just arrested and resigned) are good people and didnothing wrong to the district and that might be true except for the fact that theyallowed that incredible salary and benefits to be given out and even though all kinds ofrumors were flying around it took an outsider with OPRA requests to bring this ghastlypimple to a head Sounds more like none of them are doing their jobs and should be outof office and off the payroll They should all just resign They arent doing the job thatwas assigned to them362011 32559 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Image
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 29 of 77
Shopsteward wroteA crime was committed here It began with a violation of the Publics trust by the peoplewho allowed this contract to be signed in the first place What a jokeHow many moreof these jobs are hidden in the budgets of our Schools There needs to be a thouroughcleaning of all thses tyeps of employees everywhere At the State County Municipaland Scool board level and the appointed Authorities too Everyone screams about theUnions but whenever you hear of some great big abuse it turns out the person wasnteven in the UnionClean up this mess first Mr Christie before yougo after the little guys It will save us all a lot more money362011 101606 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser ImageShopsteward wroteI still dont get itHow is a part time24 hr a week job worth so much This is aprime example of the waste that is giving the public workers a bad nameThe onlyproblem is it isnt some Union personIts management and its the same all over This isjust the tip of the iceberg they scream about the Unions but the real waste is in jobs likethis oneNo way this job or the thousands of others like it should be paid so well99465 PLUS BENEFITS incrediblethere should be a lawandthe person gets a pension based on that bloated salarytooThere should be other people losing their jobs not for theseperation aggreement but for letting this evenhappen352011 101125 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagethesplits wroteI guess this is Runnemedes version of a shared service352011 73450 PM
User Imagethesplits wroteLooks like its the same old Runnemede and I thought we voted for change Mayor352011 73202 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagesavetheschools wroteFrom what I understand and I live in town the board went into this separationagreement because the BA would have had a potential lawsuit and it would have costthe school district and tax payers a ton of money Much more than they are spendingnow And yes it is one school board member who was apparently corrupt Just one Theyoung man who was mentioned in the article has been OPRA requesting items and willget to the bottom of this situation with the former BA and the certain board memberBut that is just one person The other members (except for the one who was justarrested and resigned) are good people and did nothing wrong to the district Thisformer BA and her friend who was hired as the maint supervisor have been a hot topicfor a few years Ask the employees they were awful and needed to go It is awful thatthis money was not spent on our children It was a trainwreck from the beginning and ifI recall correctly when the hiring took place only one of the members voted no and that
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 30 of 77
was the local high school teacher metioned in another post Runnemede schools arefantastic and maybe the new people running for election will get some answers andmake some changes And maybe the BOE member who was mentioned by employees asbeing the reason why there could be a possible lawsuit should just resign I understandadmin make good money but they also need to be accountable for their actions and ifthe BA made a hostile environment and was supported by one BOE member both shouldbe gonenot just the BA352011 33207 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagecookmom wroteWhere is Gov Christies veto power352011 30321 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagecookmom wroteThis all happened with a local police officer and a FOP member and local high schoolteacher and member of the NJEA on the board The Runnemede Board is looking alotlike the DRPA and was this group picked by the new Mayor352011 30042 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagesickofpolsnj wroteThe real truth is the Board of Education member and Brazelton and the unethicalsituation that THEY created The questionable contracts and underhanded deals There isa certain Board Member that hopes that this ends here well it doesnt There is not aTeacher or employee in Runnemede Schools that would defend Brazelton same goes forSomerdale And many are willing to bring out MANY of the things that Brazelton did todestroy the district The ENTIRE Runnemede School Community is thrilled that Brazeltonis gone Snoopysam is clearly one of two people Kelly or the Board Member shouldwe name names Hows that Mayors race looking352011 114254 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser ImageShopsteward wrote$99465 plus benefits How much does she pay for her share of those benefitsor are they free to her Her replacement only works 24 hours a week are we being toldthat she got that much money for a part time job What is the matter with theidiots that hired her to begin withNo one should get that kind of money for a part timeThat is an awful lot of money for that kind of job We should not be surprised at all Thiskind of thing is everywhere in Camden CountyIts the NORMAL way of doingbusiness352011 113922 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagelookfar111 wroteYep same old story hire someone for $98000 when 10 equally qualified people woulddo it for 60k with a 20 year top out at 75 k Then a sweetheart adios gift And the cherry
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 31 of 77
on top Another tax increase for the people God I hate what the democrat machinehave done to this once great state352011 111649 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser ImageSnoopysam wrotesickofpolsnj you must be on ot those employees that Brazelton held accountable forHER actions You are right there is so much more to this story and when the real truthscome out there will be some emplopyeesadministratorsboard members hanging theirheads in shame Talk about wasting taxpayer dollars take a look at some of the lazyincompetent employees that Brazelton had to deal withand their HUGE mistakes thathad to be corrected which cost the taxpayers thousands upon thousands of dollars352011 94250 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagesickofpolsnj wroteYou are exactly correct A teacher would never get a sweatheart deal like this I wonderwhich Board Member it was that was mentioned in that letter Did you read the blog thatthis all came out on it has way more details than this articlehttpdansviewrunnemedewordpresscom352011 92934 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagesickofpolsnj wroteOnly thing is Runnemede never had these issues Somerdale had the same EXACT issueswith Brazelton Administrators arent allowed to comment however talk to the teachersand employees off record they will tell you all about Kelly352011 92726 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagesickofpolsnj wroteThere is so much more to this story I hope the CP will run a follow up 1 Look into therealtionship and hiring surrounding Doug the maintenance supervisor 2 Check intoBrazeltons past employment Somerdale Schools 3 Brazelton is rumored to be hired atthe completion of the settlement in Deptford 4 Look into unethical practices between aBoard Member and Brazelton 5 And what about the other Board member that wasrecently charged with a serious crime352011 92315 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imageicallbullschit wroteOnce again the government tries to pin their mistakes on an individual when they screwup royally What the paper fails to report is the other side Maybe years and years ofmismanagement and patronage were uncovered and it became a hostile environmentwhen people got called on their actions and the same old routine was stopped Maybethe school board realized it would be cheaper to pay one than to pay many for theirmistakes Maybe the school board was willing to pay in order to keep their dirty littlesecrets covered up Maybe the resident should look deeper into the actions of the schoolboard and the rest of the administration Maybe I am wrong but it seems that the board
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 32 of 77
got called on some issues and now they are attacking one individual to cover theirtracks They seem to be acting like the GREAT WIZARD OF OZ Pay no attention to theidiots behind the curtain we are the all powerful and all knowing school board Pull backthe curtain people because there are people behind there that are faking their waythrough and going to wind up costing the district millions Just saying352011 85642 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagecookmom wroteSchool board President Colleen Kurth said it was much easier to go with a separationagreement than pay more legal fees She compared paying Brazelton to paying ateacher out sick while a substitute fills in The job just has to go on Kurth said I amconfused A teacher out SICK is NOT the same as a HOSTILE work enviorment How cana medical condition be compared to a person being accused of a hostile workenviorment A teacher would be REQUIRED to use their sick days~ since this is beingcompared to an illness ~was Brazelton REQUIRED to give up her sickvacation pay orwas that part of the dealWas she also paid for those days Wouldnt we all love to becollecting a salary from two towns As now she is being paid by Runnemde AND acurrent SCHOOL district where she is currently employed THIS is the waste in ourSchool districts352011 83552 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imageneocon wroteShe is part of the Protected Classes All you need to know is that she is better thanyou so just keep moveing along Nothing to see here352011 81912 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report Abuse
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 33 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 34 of 77
New Jersey Libertarian PartyOpen Government Advocacy Project
John Paff Chairman
PO Box 5424
Somerset NJ 08875-5424
Phone 732-873-1251 - Fax 908-325-0129
Email lpsmcpoboxcom
May 7 2011
Hon Colleen Kurth President and members of the
Runnemede Board of Education
505 W Third Ave
Runnemede NJ 08078 (via e-mail to vcarmodyrunnemedeschoolsorg )
Dear President Kurth and Board members
I write both individually and on behalf the New Jersey Libertarian Partys Open
Government Advocacy Project to comment on 1) the manner in which the Board of Education
goes into nonpublic (ie executive or closed) session and 2) the level of detail contained within
the Boardrsquos executive session minutes
Issue 1 Executive Session resolutions
As you are aware the Senator Byron M Baer Open Public Meetings Act requires public
bodies such as the Runnemede Board of Education to publicly pass a resolution before
excluding the public from a meeting The statute that requires the resolution states
NJSA 104-13mdashClosed meetings resolution to conduct
No public body shall exclude the public from any meeting to discuss any
matter described in subsection 7 b (104-12) until the public body shall
first adopt a resolution at a meeting to which the public shall be admitted
a Stating the general nature of the subject to be discussed and
b Stating as precisely as possible the time when and the circumstances
under which the discussion conducted in closed session of the public body
can be disclosed to the public
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 35 of 77
2
By way of a recent records request I received resolutions which purport to authorize
executive sessions intended to be held by the Board of Education on July 28 2010 (2 sessions)
August 20 2010 February 2 1011 February 23 2011 (2 sessions) and March 2 2011 Those
resolutions which are virtually identical to each other state
Executive Session to discuss student matters personnel contractual and
legal matters [time and a statement as to whether action will be
taken]
[identity of maker of motion etc]
Resolved that pursuant to Section 8 of the Public Meetings Act the public
shall be excluded from that portion of the meeting involving the discussion
of personnel legal and contractual matters Further resolved that
discussion of such subject matters discussed in Executive Session can be
disclosed to public upon official action if any at the conclusion of the
executive session or at a public session at some later date
I dont think that this form of resolution satisfies NJSA 104-13 because it gives the
public no real sense of what is being privately discussed1 To paraphrase the highest court of of
another state a body which only announces ldquolegal mattersrdquo or ldquopersonnel negotiationsrdquo for
going into executive session has said nothing It might has well have stated to the audience
ldquoLadies and gentlemen we are going into executive sessionrdquo and stopped there Hinds County
Board of Supervisors v Common Cause of Mississippi 551 So2d 107 114 (MS 1989)
Of course there can be no dispute that the Board of Education often has legitimate
reasons to meet in nonpublic session Among these reasons is the need to prevent the adverse
parties in litigation or contract negotiations from gaining an unfair advantage and to allow
members of the governing body to debate and deliberate personnel matters without public
scrutiny or participation But the need to discuss matters privately should not prevent the
public from being informed as precisely as possible of the topics that are being privately
discussed
For example suppose that Runnemede Board is being sued by a Mr Jones who was
injured after he slipped and fell on what he claims to be negligently maintained school
property Since the lawsuit is already a public record there is no public purpose served by
vaguely describing a private discussion of it as ldquostudent matters personnel contractual and
legal mattersrdquo Rather the resolution should at the very least describe the private discussion as
1 In January 2007 when I most recently litigated this issue Middlesex County Superior Court Judge Alexander P
Waugh issued a written decision in which he agreed with other court decisions that closed session resolutions
should contain as much information as is consistent with full public knowledge without doing any harm to the
public interest Judge Waughs decision and other case documents are on the Web at
httpogtfarchiveorgOGTFMonroeBOEWebreadypdf
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 36 of 77
3
ldquoDiscussion of slip and fall negligence suit Jones v Runnemede Board Docket No CAM-L-
012345-11rdquo This way the public has a very good sense of what the Boardrsquos private discussion is
about while the ability of the Board to develop its lawsuit strategy is not undermined
Using the same example suppose that Jonesrsquo attorney sent the Boardrsquos attorney an offer
to fully settle the lawsuit upon the Boardrsquos payment of $20000 While the Board would
obviously need to discuss how to respond to the offer in private lest Jones or his attorney
would be in the audience witnessing the discussion there is no reason why the public cannot be
informed in the NJSA 104-13 resolution that the Board will meet in private to discuss ldquoa
settlement offer received from the Plaintiff in the slip and fall negligence suit known as Jones v
Runnemede Board Docket No CAM-L-012345-11 in which the Plaintiff offers to settle the suit
in exchange for the Board paying him $20000rdquo While it may initially seem that this would
provide ldquotoo muchrdquo information to the public this concern disappears once it is realized that
the sole purpose of the exception2 that allows litigation matters to be discussed in private is to
keep the adverse party to the litigation in the dark regarding the Boardrsquos position3 Since in this
example the adverse party (ie Jones) already knows that he offered to settle the lawsuit for
$20000 there is no legitimate reason why the public should not also know of the tendered
settlement offer
As another example suppose that a personnel matter such as whether or not a Mrs
Smith a public works employee should be disciplined because of repeatedly arriving late to
work is to be discussed in closed session In such a case the amount of detail set forth in the
NJSA 104-13 resolution should correspond to the amount of detail that the Board and its
attorney predict will be publicly disclosed in the closed meetingrsquos minutes when those minutes
are made public
The standard that the Board is to use when determining how much information about a
personnel matter is to be disclosed in the closed sessionrsquos minutes is set forth in South Jersey
Publishing Company Inc v New Jersey Expressway Authority 124 NJ 478 (1991) That
standard is that a) the public needs information if it is properly fulfill its role of evaluating the
wisdom of governmental action or a decision not to act b) that New Jerseys strong public
policy requires that a public bodyrsquos actions and decisions to not act be disclosed in the bodys
closed meeting minutes along with sufficient facts and information to permit the public to
understand and appraise the reasonableness of the bodys determination and c) to the extent a
cognizable privacy interest may be compromised by the required disclosure the extent of
disclosure may be modified through redactions of the minutes provided the public interest in
disclosure is not subverted
2 NJSA104-12(b)(7) is to prevent adverse parties to litigation and contracts from learning the details of the
public bodyrsquos negotiation tactics and litigation strategy3 See the discussion in Paff v Washington Township Docket No MER-L-2205-07 and Nevin v Asbury Park City
Board 2005 WL 2847974 (App Div November 1 2005) which are on-line at
httpogtfarchiveorgOGTFWashingtonpdf (Nevin begins at page 44 of the PDF file at the link)
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 37 of 77
4
Thus regardless of whether the Board disciplines Ms Smith or chooses to not impose
discipline due to her lateness the outcome should be recorded in the closed meeting minutes
The question of whether that entry in the minutes should be redacted before the minutes are
made public requires a balancing of Ms Smithrsquos interest in keeping the disciplinary matter
private against the publicrsquos interest in effectively monitoring the Board If the Board with
counselrsquos advice determines after balancing these interests that the outcome will be published
unredacted in the closed sessionrsquos minutes (ie if the minutes will disclose to the public eg that
ldquoMs Smith was suspended for three days on account of her habitual latenessrdquo) then the exact
nature of the matter (ie that ldquothe Board will discuss disciplining Ms Smith for excessive
latenessrdquo) should be set forth in the closed meetingrsquos NJSA 104-13 resolution Inversely if the
Board determines that Ms Smithrsquos privacy interest exceeds the publicrsquos right to know then less
information (eg ldquothe Board will discuss disciplining an employee for excessive latenessrdquo)
should be set forth in the closed meetingrsquos NJSA 104-13 resolution
In other words if the officer or employee being discussed doesnt have a privacy interest
sufficient to withstand a citizens request for the executive session minutes why should not the
public know the topic of the executive session prior to it occurring
Irsquove attached as Exhibit pages 1 -3 is a model resolution that I would like the Board to
use in the future
Issue 2 Executive Session minutes
Attached as Exhibit Page 4 as an example are the Boardrsquos July 28 2010 executive session
minutes It is troubling that a meeting that lasted over an hour is being summed up in a single
sentence ldquoMr Phil Stern addressed the Board of Education about personnel issuesrdquo These
minutes are not ldquoreasonably comprehensiblerdquo as required by NJSA 104-14
The purpose of closed meeting minutes is not merely to inform the public of whatoccurred during the private session but also to create a record for the Board membersthemselves A Board member who is newly elected in 2012 should be able by referringsolely to the minutes to figure out what issues the Board addressed during any previouslyheld closed meeting This hypothetical Board member after reading the July 28 2010closed minutes could not possibly figure out which employees or officials Mr Stern wastalking about
Better practice would be to record closed minutes that are much morecomprehensive but to redact that material that must be shielded from public view Forexample the minutes could have said
Mr Stern addressed the Board of Education about the habitualtardiness of 2nd grade teacher Mary Doe and her propensity to eatlibrary paste and scream hysterically during fire drills Herecommended that she be sent for psychiatric evaluation
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 38 of 77
5
Of course if a member of the public requested these hypothetical minutes the Boardmay need to redact them in order to protect privacy interests The point however is thatregardless of whether unredacted closed meeting minutes are ever released to the publicthey should contain sufficient details so that the Board members themselves can monthsor years later know what was discussed
Attached as Exhibit pages 5 ndash 9 is an order recently entered in Schmidt et al v City of
Gloucester City et al Docket No CAM-L-1287-11 As you can see paraA(3) supports my position
that the Boardrsquos minutes are not ldquoreasonably comprehensiblerdquo as required by law
Conclusion
Since some public bodies do not take my requests for Meetings Act compliance seriously
I regret having to inform the Board that I will sue for declaratory and injunctive relief in
accordance with NJSA 104-16 unless I receive assurances from the Boardmdashwithin a few days
after its May 10 2011 meetingmdashthat it will work in good faith to improve the amount of
information in both its closed session resolutions and minutes If the Boardrsquos agenda is already
set for the May 10 2011 meeting please at least acknowledge this letter and let me know the
date of the meeting at which it will be considered
Thank you very much for your attention to this matter I look forward to hearing from
you
Sincerely
John Paff
cc Philip E Stern Esq w enc (via e-mail to psternasgllawcom )
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 39 of 77
RUNNEMEDE BOARD OF EDUCATIONRESOLUTION NO ___________
AUTHORIZING EXECUTIVE SESSION
WHEREAS while the Sen Byron M Baer Open Public Meetings Act (NJSA 104-6 et seq) requires allmeetings of the Runnemede Board of Education to be held in public NJSA 104-12(b) sets forth nine (9)types of matters that may lawfully be discussed in ldquoExecutive Sessionrdquo ie without the public beingpermitted to attend and
WHEREAS the Runnemede Board of Education has determined that _____ (insert number) issues arepermitted by NJSA 104-12(b) to be discussed without the public in attendance shall be discussed duringan Executive Session to be held on _________________________ 20____ at _______ PM and
WHEREAS the nine (9) exceptions to public meetings set forth in NJSA 104-12(b) are listed below andnext to each exception is a box within which the number of issues to be privately discussed that fall withinthat exception shall be written and after each exception is a space where additional information that willdisclose as much information about the discussion as possible without undermining the purpose of theexception shall be written
ldquo(1) Any matter which by express provision of Federal law State statute or rule of courtshall be rendered confidential or excluded from public discussionrdquo The legal citation to theprovision(s) at issue is__________________________ and the nature of the matter described asspecifically as possible without undermining the need for confidentiality is _______________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(2) Any matter in which the release of information would impair a right to receive fundsfrom the federal governmentrdquo The nature of the matter described as specifically as possiblewithout undermining the need for confidentiality is _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(3) Any material the disclosure of which constitutes an unwarranted invasion of individualprivacy such as any records data reports recommendations or other personal material ofany educational training social service medical health custodial child protectionrehabilitation legal defense welfare housing relocation insurance and similar program orinstitution operated by a public body pertaining to any specific individual admitted to orserved by such institution or program including but not limited to information relative tothe individuals personal and family circumstances and any material pertaining toadmission discharge treatment progress or condition of any individual unless theindividual concerned (or in the case of a minor or incompetent his guardian) shall requestin writing that the same be disclosed publiclyrdquo The nature of the matter described asspecifically as possible without undermining the need for confidentiality is______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(4) Any collective bargaining agreement or the terms and conditions of which are proposedfor inclusion in any collective bargaining agreement including the negotiation of terms andconditions with employees or representatives of employees of the public bodyrdquo The collectivebargaining contract(s) discussed are between the Board and ____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Exhibit Page 1Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 40 of 77
ldquo(5) Any matter involving the purchase lease or acquisition of real property with publicfunds the setting of bank rates or investment of public funds where it could adversely affectthe public interest if discussion of such matters were disclosedrdquo The nature of the matterdescribed as specifically as possible without undermining the need for confidentiality is____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(6) Any tactics and techniques utilized in protecting the safety and property of the publicprovided that their disclosure could impair such protection Any investigations of violationsor possible violations of the lawrdquo The nature of the matter described as specifically as possiblewithout undermining the need for confidentiality is ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(7) Any pending or anticipated litigation or contract negotiation in which the public body isor may become a party Any matters falling within the attorney-client privilege to the extentthat confidentiality is required in order for the attorney to exercise his ethicalduties as a lawyerrdquo The parties to and docket numbers of each item of litigation andor theparties to each contract discussed are __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ andnature of the discussion described as specifically as possible without undermining the need forconfidentiality is ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(8) Any matter involving the employment appointment termination of employment termsand conditions of employment evaluation of the performance promotion or disciplining ofany specific prospective public officer or employee or current public officer or employeeemployed or appointed by the public body unless all individual employees or appointees whoserights could be adversely affected request in writing that such matter or matters be discussed ata public meetingrdquo Subject to the balancing of the publicrsquos interest and the employeersquos privacyrights under South Jersey Publishing Co v New Jersey Expressway Authority 124 NJ 478 theemployee(s) and nature of the discussion described as specifically as possible withoutundermining the need for confidentiality are _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(9) Any deliberation of a public body occurring after a public hearing that may result in theimposition of a specific civil penalty upon the responding party or the suspension or loss of alicense or permit belonging to the responding party as a result of an act of omission forwhich the responding party bears responsibilityrdquo The nature of the matter described asspecifically as possible without undermining the need for confidentiality is______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
WHEREAS the length of the Executive Session is estimated to be ________ minutes after which the publicmeeting of the Board shall (circle one) reconvene and immediately adjourn or reconvene and proceed withbusiness
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Runnemede Board of Education will go into ExecutiveSession for only the above stated reasons
Exhibit Page 2Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 41 of 77
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board hereby declares that its discussion of the aforementionedsubject(s) will be made public at a time when the publicrsquos interest in disclosure is greater than any privacy orgovernmental interest being protected from disclosure For each of the above items the estimated date bywhich such disclosure can be made andor the occurrence that needs to take place before disclosure can bemade are listed below (attach separate sheet if necessary)
Subject of Discussion Estimated Date Necessary Occurrence
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Clerk at the present public meeting shall read aloud enough ofthis resolution so that members of the public in attendance can understand as precisely as possible thenature of the matters that will privately discussed
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Clerk on the next business day following this meeting shallfurnish a copy of this resolution to any member of the public who requests one at the fees allowed byNJSA 471A-1 et seq
_________________________________Board President
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS ATRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTIONAPPROVED BY THE RUNNEMEDE BOARD OF EDUCATION AT ITSPUBLIC MEETING HELD ON ______________________20___
_______________________________________Board Secretary
Exhibit Page 3Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 42 of 77
Exhibit Page 4Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 43 of 77
Exhibit Page 5Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 44 of 77
Exhibit Page 6Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 45 of 77
Exhibit Page 7Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 46 of 77
Exhibit Page 8Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 47 of 77
Exhibit Page 9Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 48 of 77
Subject Records RequestFrom John Paff ltpaffpoboxcomgtDate Sat 07 May 2011 161444 -0400To vcarmodyrunnemedeschoolsorgCC psternasgllawcom
Ms Carmody
Please accept this e-mail as my request for government records inaccordance with the Open Public Records Act (OPRA) and the commonlaw right of access Please respond and send all responsivedocuments to me via e-mail at paffpoboxcom If e-mail is notpossible please fax responses and responsive records to me at908-325-0129 Also I would appreciate it if you wouldacknowledge your receipt of this e-mail
Background
In response to a records request I recently received redactedexecutive session minutes for the following dates July 28 2010(first session) August 26 2010 February 2 2011 February 232011 (two sessions) and March 2 2011 Although Mr Stern providedme with a sheet entitled Documents Exempt From OPRA request thatpurports to explain these redactions I am still unclear as to whythe matter was redacted and whether it was lawfully redacted
First I dont understand references such as NJSA 471A-11(12)(c) The version of OPRA that I have (plus every other oneIve seen) does not have internal numbers within NJSA471A-11 Am I correct that NJSA 471A-11(12)(c) isintended to refer to the exemption for records in connection withcollective negotiations including documents and statements ofstrategy or negotiating position and that NJSA 471A-11(7)is intended to refer to any record within the attorney-clientprivilege This paragraph shall not be construed as exempting fromaccess attorney or consultant bills or invoices except that suchbills or invoices may be redacted to remove any informationprotected by the attorney-client privilege Please advise
Second even if I correctly corresponded the claimed exemptions tothe OPRA statute I have no way of knowing whether the mattersredacted are actually exempt from access When a custodiansuppresses any portion of any requested record NJSA471A-5(g) requires him or her to state the ldquospecific basisrdquo foreach suppressed element Beyond stating the ldquospecific basisrdquo foreach suppressed element he or she is required to ldquoproduce
Records Request
1 of 2 622011 810 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 49 of 77
specific reliable evidence sufficient to meet a statutorilyrecognized basis for confidentialityrdquo Courier News v HunterdonCounty Prosecutorrsquos Office 358 NJ Super 373 382-83 (App Div2003) Further he or she must explain each suppression in amanner that ldquowill enable other parties to assess the applicabilityof the privilege or protectionrdquo Paff v New Jersey Department ofLabor Board of Review 379 NJ Super 346 354-55 (2005)(quoting R 410-2(e))
Records requested
Runnemede Board of Education minutes for the following dates July28 2010 (728 pm session only) August 26 2010 February 22011 February 23 2011 (both sessions) and March 2 2011 Iwould like these minutes redacted as narrowly as possible if atall For each redaction I request a written explanation thatmeets the requirements of the case law cited above
cc Phil Stern
Records Request
2 of 2 622011 810 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 50 of 77
Subject Re Fwd Runnemede Board of Education Open PublicMeetings ActFrom John Paff ltpaffpoboxcomgtDate Mon 09 May 2011 134726 -0400To Nancy Ward ltnwardrunnemedeschoolsorggt
Thank you
On 592011 116 PM Nancy Ward wrote
Mr Paff
The Board has named me Custodian of Records Please direct allfuturecommunication to me The May 10 2011 meeting is theRe-organization ofthe Runnemede Board of Education The agenda is set and is verycomprehensive I intend to defer the letter and any discussionregardingits content to the next regular meeting the date of which willbe setat the re-organization tomorrow night In keeping with thedistrictsmeeting pattern that will be May 25 2011
Nancy BWard EdD
Superintendent of Schools
-----Original Message-----From John PaffSent 572011 42300 PMTo nwardrunnemedeschoolsorgCc vcarmodyrunnemedeschoolsorg psternasgllawcomSubject Fwd Runnemede Board of Education Open Public MeetingsAct
Here is another e-mail in case my original one should have beendirected to Ms Ward and not Ms Carmody
JP
-------- Original Message --------Subject Runnemede Board of Education Open Public Meetings ActDate Sat 07 May 2011 152319 -0400From John Paff
Re Fwd Runnemede Board of Education Open Public Meetings Act
1 of 2 622011 811 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 51 of 77
Reply-To paffpoboxcomTo vcarmodyrunnemedeschoolsorg psternasgllawcom
Ms Carmody and Mr Stern
Attached is a letter that I would like the Board to consider atits May10 2011 meeting Would you please a) acknowledge receipt of theletterand b) distribute it to all the Board members
Note that the last paragraph of the letter indicates that I willfilesuit against the Board if the issues in the letter arentaddressedSo if the Boards agenda for the May 10th meeting is so tightthat myletter cannot be accommodated please advise me of such andprovide ameeting date where my letter will be addressed so that I knowthat I amnot being ignored
Thank you
John Paff ChairmanNew Jersey Libertarian PartysOpen Government Advocacy Project
Re Fwd Runnemede Board of Education Open Public Meetings Act
2 of 2 622011 811 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 52 of 77
Subject OPRA RequestFrom Philip Stern ltpsternasgllawcomgtDate Fri 20 May 2011 161015 -0500To paffpoboxcom ltpaffpoboxcomgtCC Nancy Ward ltnwardrunnemedeschoolsorggt
Mr Paff please find attached to this email a response to your request forbusiness records Please note that in providing you with the attachedrecords the Runnemede Borough Board of Education waives no rightsregarding the attorney-client privilege Do not hesitate to call me if youhave any questions Phil Stern
Philip E SternAdams Stern Gutierrez amp Lattiboudere LLCThe Legal Center1037 Raymond Blvd Suite 710Newark New Jersey 07102(973) 735-2742 (office telephone)(201) 914-2415 (cellular telephone)(973) 735-2743 (office telefax)
May 20 Paff responsepdf
Content-DescriptionMay 20 Paffresponsepdf
Content-Type applicationpdf
Content-Encoding base64
OPRA Request
1 of 1 622011 815 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 53 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 54 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 55 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 56 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 57 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 58 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 59 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 60 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 61 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 62 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 63 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 64 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 65 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 66 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 67 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 68 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 69 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 70 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 71 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 72 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 73 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 74 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 75 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 76 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 77 of 77
- Civil Complaint
- Exhibits
-
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 23 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 24 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 25 of 77
Idled officials payout riles Runnemede
By BARBARA S ROTHSCHILD bull Courier-Post Staff bull March 5 2011
RUNNEMEDE mdash Although the school district is paying Business Administrator Kelly PetersBrazelton her full salary to stay home while paying for an interim employee RunnemedeSuperintendent Nancy Ward said it could have cost more not to have a separationagreement
New Jersey is a very litigious state she said In order to avoid litigation which neveris a good thing a separation agreement gives you a certain outcome
Brazelton a Deptford resident and the former business administrator for the SomerdalePublic School District began working for Runnemede schools in August 2008 Her mostrecent contract for July 1 2010 through June 30 is for $99465 plus benefits
But the relationship soured and the district would not comment on specifics citingconfidentiality
A letter from staff members written to Ward and the school board in July 2010 gaveexamples of a hostile work environment that they said was created by the businessadministrator
Brazelton could not be reached Her attorney Joseph Betley of Mount Laurel said hisclient signed the separation agreement in good faith
There was a disagreement between the board and Kelly he said It was resolved andboth sides decided to move on
She disputes any and all allegations regarding a hostile work environment It wassimply Kelly doing her job
The separation agreement and release dated Oct 20 stipulates Brazelton be placed ona paid leave of absence from Sept 23 to April 15 at which time she would irrevocablyresign
School board President Colleen Kurth said it was much easier to go with a separationagreement than pay more legal fees
She compared paying Brazelton to paying a teacher out sick while a substitute fills in
The job just has to go on Kurth said
Interim Business Administrator Valerie Carmody who retired from the same post in EastGreenwich last year was hired Dec 1 at $60 per hour 24 hours maximum per weekHer contract ends June 30
New Jersey School Boards Association spokesman Mike Yaple said such separationagreements are infrequent
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 26 of 77
No school board willingly enters into an agreement like this he insisted But eventhough its not a popular decision its the lesser of two evils
Residents unhappy about the districts handling of the situation include Dan Conard ajournalism student at Rowan University Conard writes a blog where he discusses schooldistrict and municipal matters To comment on this topic he filed Open Public RecordsAct (OPRA) document requests
I just wanted to get it out there so people know what is going on Conard said
Ward said she has no quarrel with the student but believes Brazeltons case is anunusual circumstance
It (the separation agreement) was the most responsible thing the district could havedone she insisted Was it a bitter pill to swallow It took the board (a while) beforethey felt it was something they could do but it makes the most sense
Ward said the part-time arrangement with Carmody is working out well and that as thedistrict improves efficiency it is unlikely another full-time business administrator will behired particularly when Executive County Superintendent Peggy Nicolosi has advisedagainst it
Among the options being considered are another part-time business administrator or ashared-service agreement with another district
Ward said she would have preferred the money being expended in this case be spent oneducational programs and teachers particularly this year
Although voters passed Runnemedes 2010-11 budget while many others were defeatedlast April the district of 853 students in K-8 lost six staffers and streamlined its gifted-and-talented program after state aid was cut
Ward also defended the decision to keep a maintenance techniciansupervisor positioncreated in 2008 noting it has saved at least $145000 each year
Mark Speck of Voorhees earns $50000 in the post Through June 2010 it was filled byDoug McGarry a former building and grounds supervisor in the Somerdale district Heearned $60000 in Runnemede but had more experience than Speck Ward said
Before Brazelton arrived in Runnemede the business administrator also served asmaintenance supervisor Ward said that actually cost the district more because it had topay outside maintenance workers sometimes for faulty work
Many things had been done to the facilities that were not to the boards satisfactionshe said That first year with our own maintenance person we saved $145000 becausewe hired a person who fixed things
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 27 of 77
Speck works with vendors going over bids and quotes and also does minor repairs thatno longer have to be paid for piecemeal Ward said the position is staying in the 2011-2012 budget adopted preliminarily on Wednesday
Hes the guy whos here at 4 am making sure weve got snow plows when we needthem Ward said Hes dirty and sweaty -- and hes excellent
Ward said the budget sent to the county includes a $78 annual tax increase for theowner of a home assessed at the $97800 borough average but does not cut staff orprograms
Kurth hopes to tweak the budget and lower the tax hike before it is introduced to thepublic on March 23 But she agreed the maintenance supervisor will stay
That was an investment on the part of the school district Kurth said
Reach Barbara S Rothschild at (856) 486-2416 or barothschildcamdengannettcom
--Comments
User Imageamonkeycoulddoit wroteThe mayor cant hear you because she doesnt even know how to turn on a computerNot that it was a requirement that the mayor should know how to use one I think theonly requirement is that they have a pulse And she does but barely372011 12406 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imageamonkeycoulddoit wroteTo sickofpolsnj it does seem that snoopysam has some inside information And whenyou say hows that mayors race looking I hope that you dont mean that someone fromthe disfunctional school board is going to run for mayor or council or some other electedposition considering the mess that they made on the school board372011 11832 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imageamonkeycoulddoit wroteIf the school board president had listened to staff when the hostil work enviroment issuestarted then she might not be in this pickle She should have spent the money on thelegal fees because if everything is true about the hostile enviroment then they wouldhave won the lawsuit hands down and not had to pay out anything and gotten their legalfees back Another example of elected officials not capable of doing the job they are inLets hope that some people come out of the woodwork to run for school board peoplewho care about the kids and the taxpayers372011 11309 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imageamonkeycoulddoit wrote
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 28 of 77
The school boad is not as inept as the mayor and council You dont have to be a collegegraduate or or even be able to read or write to get an elected position in runnemedeThe 2 new council members got elected because the are involved in the union andeveryone who supports the union came out to vote And the new mayor must have a lotof friends But now after the few months they have been in office it is clear to see thatthey are not able to handle the job Mayor14 is right that the people of Runnemedevoted because they thought they would get something in return for their vote but itlooks like they were wrong In the upcoming elections for school board and council votefor the person who will do the best job whether you like them or not Dont just vote forsomeone because you are told to372011 10214 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagethemayor14 wrotei am so glad this article was written and it clearly points out how inept the runnemedeboard of education actually is the board of education is not elected based on businessand education talent the elections are nothing more than a popularity contest i dontknow how other towns operate but runnemede boro is a total joke when it come toelections be it school board or general elections i wish everyone would get their headsout of their A$$ and truly investigate the school board canidates that are running forelection VOTE WITH YOUR HEAD NOT WITH YOUR HEART362011 91350 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagesavetheschools wroteSeveral people are running for the board for four open seats I signed a petition todayfor a new woman running Members are not paid If you live in Runnemede shopstewardyou have until Tuesday to get a petition submitted I asked and found out there is only 5people on average at the BOE meetings every month in Runnemede I hope more peoplestart to go I plan on it myself And we all need to go every month not just when weread negative press about our schools That is the only way we would all stay informedand not rely on the young man submitting OPRA requests Our town has always beenabout the kids and it needs to get back that way362011 80936 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser ImageShopsteward wroteWhy did it take one young man sending in OPRA requests to bring all this to lightWhy are you relying upon him to get to the bottom of it You say The other members(except for the one who was just arrested and resigned) are good people and didnothing wrong to the district and that might be true except for the fact that theyallowed that incredible salary and benefits to be given out and even though all kinds ofrumors were flying around it took an outsider with OPRA requests to bring this ghastlypimple to a head Sounds more like none of them are doing their jobs and should be outof office and off the payroll They should all just resign They arent doing the job thatwas assigned to them362011 32559 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Image
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 29 of 77
Shopsteward wroteA crime was committed here It began with a violation of the Publics trust by the peoplewho allowed this contract to be signed in the first place What a jokeHow many moreof these jobs are hidden in the budgets of our Schools There needs to be a thouroughcleaning of all thses tyeps of employees everywhere At the State County Municipaland Scool board level and the appointed Authorities too Everyone screams about theUnions but whenever you hear of some great big abuse it turns out the person wasnteven in the UnionClean up this mess first Mr Christie before yougo after the little guys It will save us all a lot more money362011 101606 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser ImageShopsteward wroteI still dont get itHow is a part time24 hr a week job worth so much This is aprime example of the waste that is giving the public workers a bad nameThe onlyproblem is it isnt some Union personIts management and its the same all over This isjust the tip of the iceberg they scream about the Unions but the real waste is in jobs likethis oneNo way this job or the thousands of others like it should be paid so well99465 PLUS BENEFITS incrediblethere should be a lawandthe person gets a pension based on that bloated salarytooThere should be other people losing their jobs not for theseperation aggreement but for letting this evenhappen352011 101125 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagethesplits wroteI guess this is Runnemedes version of a shared service352011 73450 PM
User Imagethesplits wroteLooks like its the same old Runnemede and I thought we voted for change Mayor352011 73202 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagesavetheschools wroteFrom what I understand and I live in town the board went into this separationagreement because the BA would have had a potential lawsuit and it would have costthe school district and tax payers a ton of money Much more than they are spendingnow And yes it is one school board member who was apparently corrupt Just one Theyoung man who was mentioned in the article has been OPRA requesting items and willget to the bottom of this situation with the former BA and the certain board memberBut that is just one person The other members (except for the one who was justarrested and resigned) are good people and did nothing wrong to the district Thisformer BA and her friend who was hired as the maint supervisor have been a hot topicfor a few years Ask the employees they were awful and needed to go It is awful thatthis money was not spent on our children It was a trainwreck from the beginning and ifI recall correctly when the hiring took place only one of the members voted no and that
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 30 of 77
was the local high school teacher metioned in another post Runnemede schools arefantastic and maybe the new people running for election will get some answers andmake some changes And maybe the BOE member who was mentioned by employees asbeing the reason why there could be a possible lawsuit should just resign I understandadmin make good money but they also need to be accountable for their actions and ifthe BA made a hostile environment and was supported by one BOE member both shouldbe gonenot just the BA352011 33207 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagecookmom wroteWhere is Gov Christies veto power352011 30321 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagecookmom wroteThis all happened with a local police officer and a FOP member and local high schoolteacher and member of the NJEA on the board The Runnemede Board is looking alotlike the DRPA and was this group picked by the new Mayor352011 30042 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagesickofpolsnj wroteThe real truth is the Board of Education member and Brazelton and the unethicalsituation that THEY created The questionable contracts and underhanded deals There isa certain Board Member that hopes that this ends here well it doesnt There is not aTeacher or employee in Runnemede Schools that would defend Brazelton same goes forSomerdale And many are willing to bring out MANY of the things that Brazelton did todestroy the district The ENTIRE Runnemede School Community is thrilled that Brazeltonis gone Snoopysam is clearly one of two people Kelly or the Board Member shouldwe name names Hows that Mayors race looking352011 114254 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser ImageShopsteward wrote$99465 plus benefits How much does she pay for her share of those benefitsor are they free to her Her replacement only works 24 hours a week are we being toldthat she got that much money for a part time job What is the matter with theidiots that hired her to begin withNo one should get that kind of money for a part timeThat is an awful lot of money for that kind of job We should not be surprised at all Thiskind of thing is everywhere in Camden CountyIts the NORMAL way of doingbusiness352011 113922 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagelookfar111 wroteYep same old story hire someone for $98000 when 10 equally qualified people woulddo it for 60k with a 20 year top out at 75 k Then a sweetheart adios gift And the cherry
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 31 of 77
on top Another tax increase for the people God I hate what the democrat machinehave done to this once great state352011 111649 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser ImageSnoopysam wrotesickofpolsnj you must be on ot those employees that Brazelton held accountable forHER actions You are right there is so much more to this story and when the real truthscome out there will be some emplopyeesadministratorsboard members hanging theirheads in shame Talk about wasting taxpayer dollars take a look at some of the lazyincompetent employees that Brazelton had to deal withand their HUGE mistakes thathad to be corrected which cost the taxpayers thousands upon thousands of dollars352011 94250 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagesickofpolsnj wroteYou are exactly correct A teacher would never get a sweatheart deal like this I wonderwhich Board Member it was that was mentioned in that letter Did you read the blog thatthis all came out on it has way more details than this articlehttpdansviewrunnemedewordpresscom352011 92934 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagesickofpolsnj wroteOnly thing is Runnemede never had these issues Somerdale had the same EXACT issueswith Brazelton Administrators arent allowed to comment however talk to the teachersand employees off record they will tell you all about Kelly352011 92726 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagesickofpolsnj wroteThere is so much more to this story I hope the CP will run a follow up 1 Look into therealtionship and hiring surrounding Doug the maintenance supervisor 2 Check intoBrazeltons past employment Somerdale Schools 3 Brazelton is rumored to be hired atthe completion of the settlement in Deptford 4 Look into unethical practices between aBoard Member and Brazelton 5 And what about the other Board member that wasrecently charged with a serious crime352011 92315 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imageicallbullschit wroteOnce again the government tries to pin their mistakes on an individual when they screwup royally What the paper fails to report is the other side Maybe years and years ofmismanagement and patronage were uncovered and it became a hostile environmentwhen people got called on their actions and the same old routine was stopped Maybethe school board realized it would be cheaper to pay one than to pay many for theirmistakes Maybe the school board was willing to pay in order to keep their dirty littlesecrets covered up Maybe the resident should look deeper into the actions of the schoolboard and the rest of the administration Maybe I am wrong but it seems that the board
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 32 of 77
got called on some issues and now they are attacking one individual to cover theirtracks They seem to be acting like the GREAT WIZARD OF OZ Pay no attention to theidiots behind the curtain we are the all powerful and all knowing school board Pull backthe curtain people because there are people behind there that are faking their waythrough and going to wind up costing the district millions Just saying352011 85642 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagecookmom wroteSchool board President Colleen Kurth said it was much easier to go with a separationagreement than pay more legal fees She compared paying Brazelton to paying ateacher out sick while a substitute fills in The job just has to go on Kurth said I amconfused A teacher out SICK is NOT the same as a HOSTILE work enviorment How cana medical condition be compared to a person being accused of a hostile workenviorment A teacher would be REQUIRED to use their sick days~ since this is beingcompared to an illness ~was Brazelton REQUIRED to give up her sickvacation pay orwas that part of the dealWas she also paid for those days Wouldnt we all love to becollecting a salary from two towns As now she is being paid by Runnemde AND acurrent SCHOOL district where she is currently employed THIS is the waste in ourSchool districts352011 83552 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imageneocon wroteShe is part of the Protected Classes All you need to know is that she is better thanyou so just keep moveing along Nothing to see here352011 81912 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report Abuse
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 33 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 34 of 77
New Jersey Libertarian PartyOpen Government Advocacy Project
John Paff Chairman
PO Box 5424
Somerset NJ 08875-5424
Phone 732-873-1251 - Fax 908-325-0129
Email lpsmcpoboxcom
May 7 2011
Hon Colleen Kurth President and members of the
Runnemede Board of Education
505 W Third Ave
Runnemede NJ 08078 (via e-mail to vcarmodyrunnemedeschoolsorg )
Dear President Kurth and Board members
I write both individually and on behalf the New Jersey Libertarian Partys Open
Government Advocacy Project to comment on 1) the manner in which the Board of Education
goes into nonpublic (ie executive or closed) session and 2) the level of detail contained within
the Boardrsquos executive session minutes
Issue 1 Executive Session resolutions
As you are aware the Senator Byron M Baer Open Public Meetings Act requires public
bodies such as the Runnemede Board of Education to publicly pass a resolution before
excluding the public from a meeting The statute that requires the resolution states
NJSA 104-13mdashClosed meetings resolution to conduct
No public body shall exclude the public from any meeting to discuss any
matter described in subsection 7 b (104-12) until the public body shall
first adopt a resolution at a meeting to which the public shall be admitted
a Stating the general nature of the subject to be discussed and
b Stating as precisely as possible the time when and the circumstances
under which the discussion conducted in closed session of the public body
can be disclosed to the public
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 35 of 77
2
By way of a recent records request I received resolutions which purport to authorize
executive sessions intended to be held by the Board of Education on July 28 2010 (2 sessions)
August 20 2010 February 2 1011 February 23 2011 (2 sessions) and March 2 2011 Those
resolutions which are virtually identical to each other state
Executive Session to discuss student matters personnel contractual and
legal matters [time and a statement as to whether action will be
taken]
[identity of maker of motion etc]
Resolved that pursuant to Section 8 of the Public Meetings Act the public
shall be excluded from that portion of the meeting involving the discussion
of personnel legal and contractual matters Further resolved that
discussion of such subject matters discussed in Executive Session can be
disclosed to public upon official action if any at the conclusion of the
executive session or at a public session at some later date
I dont think that this form of resolution satisfies NJSA 104-13 because it gives the
public no real sense of what is being privately discussed1 To paraphrase the highest court of of
another state a body which only announces ldquolegal mattersrdquo or ldquopersonnel negotiationsrdquo for
going into executive session has said nothing It might has well have stated to the audience
ldquoLadies and gentlemen we are going into executive sessionrdquo and stopped there Hinds County
Board of Supervisors v Common Cause of Mississippi 551 So2d 107 114 (MS 1989)
Of course there can be no dispute that the Board of Education often has legitimate
reasons to meet in nonpublic session Among these reasons is the need to prevent the adverse
parties in litigation or contract negotiations from gaining an unfair advantage and to allow
members of the governing body to debate and deliberate personnel matters without public
scrutiny or participation But the need to discuss matters privately should not prevent the
public from being informed as precisely as possible of the topics that are being privately
discussed
For example suppose that Runnemede Board is being sued by a Mr Jones who was
injured after he slipped and fell on what he claims to be negligently maintained school
property Since the lawsuit is already a public record there is no public purpose served by
vaguely describing a private discussion of it as ldquostudent matters personnel contractual and
legal mattersrdquo Rather the resolution should at the very least describe the private discussion as
1 In January 2007 when I most recently litigated this issue Middlesex County Superior Court Judge Alexander P
Waugh issued a written decision in which he agreed with other court decisions that closed session resolutions
should contain as much information as is consistent with full public knowledge without doing any harm to the
public interest Judge Waughs decision and other case documents are on the Web at
httpogtfarchiveorgOGTFMonroeBOEWebreadypdf
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 36 of 77
3
ldquoDiscussion of slip and fall negligence suit Jones v Runnemede Board Docket No CAM-L-
012345-11rdquo This way the public has a very good sense of what the Boardrsquos private discussion is
about while the ability of the Board to develop its lawsuit strategy is not undermined
Using the same example suppose that Jonesrsquo attorney sent the Boardrsquos attorney an offer
to fully settle the lawsuit upon the Boardrsquos payment of $20000 While the Board would
obviously need to discuss how to respond to the offer in private lest Jones or his attorney
would be in the audience witnessing the discussion there is no reason why the public cannot be
informed in the NJSA 104-13 resolution that the Board will meet in private to discuss ldquoa
settlement offer received from the Plaintiff in the slip and fall negligence suit known as Jones v
Runnemede Board Docket No CAM-L-012345-11 in which the Plaintiff offers to settle the suit
in exchange for the Board paying him $20000rdquo While it may initially seem that this would
provide ldquotoo muchrdquo information to the public this concern disappears once it is realized that
the sole purpose of the exception2 that allows litigation matters to be discussed in private is to
keep the adverse party to the litigation in the dark regarding the Boardrsquos position3 Since in this
example the adverse party (ie Jones) already knows that he offered to settle the lawsuit for
$20000 there is no legitimate reason why the public should not also know of the tendered
settlement offer
As another example suppose that a personnel matter such as whether or not a Mrs
Smith a public works employee should be disciplined because of repeatedly arriving late to
work is to be discussed in closed session In such a case the amount of detail set forth in the
NJSA 104-13 resolution should correspond to the amount of detail that the Board and its
attorney predict will be publicly disclosed in the closed meetingrsquos minutes when those minutes
are made public
The standard that the Board is to use when determining how much information about a
personnel matter is to be disclosed in the closed sessionrsquos minutes is set forth in South Jersey
Publishing Company Inc v New Jersey Expressway Authority 124 NJ 478 (1991) That
standard is that a) the public needs information if it is properly fulfill its role of evaluating the
wisdom of governmental action or a decision not to act b) that New Jerseys strong public
policy requires that a public bodyrsquos actions and decisions to not act be disclosed in the bodys
closed meeting minutes along with sufficient facts and information to permit the public to
understand and appraise the reasonableness of the bodys determination and c) to the extent a
cognizable privacy interest may be compromised by the required disclosure the extent of
disclosure may be modified through redactions of the minutes provided the public interest in
disclosure is not subverted
2 NJSA104-12(b)(7) is to prevent adverse parties to litigation and contracts from learning the details of the
public bodyrsquos negotiation tactics and litigation strategy3 See the discussion in Paff v Washington Township Docket No MER-L-2205-07 and Nevin v Asbury Park City
Board 2005 WL 2847974 (App Div November 1 2005) which are on-line at
httpogtfarchiveorgOGTFWashingtonpdf (Nevin begins at page 44 of the PDF file at the link)
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 37 of 77
4
Thus regardless of whether the Board disciplines Ms Smith or chooses to not impose
discipline due to her lateness the outcome should be recorded in the closed meeting minutes
The question of whether that entry in the minutes should be redacted before the minutes are
made public requires a balancing of Ms Smithrsquos interest in keeping the disciplinary matter
private against the publicrsquos interest in effectively monitoring the Board If the Board with
counselrsquos advice determines after balancing these interests that the outcome will be published
unredacted in the closed sessionrsquos minutes (ie if the minutes will disclose to the public eg that
ldquoMs Smith was suspended for three days on account of her habitual latenessrdquo) then the exact
nature of the matter (ie that ldquothe Board will discuss disciplining Ms Smith for excessive
latenessrdquo) should be set forth in the closed meetingrsquos NJSA 104-13 resolution Inversely if the
Board determines that Ms Smithrsquos privacy interest exceeds the publicrsquos right to know then less
information (eg ldquothe Board will discuss disciplining an employee for excessive latenessrdquo)
should be set forth in the closed meetingrsquos NJSA 104-13 resolution
In other words if the officer or employee being discussed doesnt have a privacy interest
sufficient to withstand a citizens request for the executive session minutes why should not the
public know the topic of the executive session prior to it occurring
Irsquove attached as Exhibit pages 1 -3 is a model resolution that I would like the Board to
use in the future
Issue 2 Executive Session minutes
Attached as Exhibit Page 4 as an example are the Boardrsquos July 28 2010 executive session
minutes It is troubling that a meeting that lasted over an hour is being summed up in a single
sentence ldquoMr Phil Stern addressed the Board of Education about personnel issuesrdquo These
minutes are not ldquoreasonably comprehensiblerdquo as required by NJSA 104-14
The purpose of closed meeting minutes is not merely to inform the public of whatoccurred during the private session but also to create a record for the Board membersthemselves A Board member who is newly elected in 2012 should be able by referringsolely to the minutes to figure out what issues the Board addressed during any previouslyheld closed meeting This hypothetical Board member after reading the July 28 2010closed minutes could not possibly figure out which employees or officials Mr Stern wastalking about
Better practice would be to record closed minutes that are much morecomprehensive but to redact that material that must be shielded from public view Forexample the minutes could have said
Mr Stern addressed the Board of Education about the habitualtardiness of 2nd grade teacher Mary Doe and her propensity to eatlibrary paste and scream hysterically during fire drills Herecommended that she be sent for psychiatric evaluation
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 38 of 77
5
Of course if a member of the public requested these hypothetical minutes the Boardmay need to redact them in order to protect privacy interests The point however is thatregardless of whether unredacted closed meeting minutes are ever released to the publicthey should contain sufficient details so that the Board members themselves can monthsor years later know what was discussed
Attached as Exhibit pages 5 ndash 9 is an order recently entered in Schmidt et al v City of
Gloucester City et al Docket No CAM-L-1287-11 As you can see paraA(3) supports my position
that the Boardrsquos minutes are not ldquoreasonably comprehensiblerdquo as required by law
Conclusion
Since some public bodies do not take my requests for Meetings Act compliance seriously
I regret having to inform the Board that I will sue for declaratory and injunctive relief in
accordance with NJSA 104-16 unless I receive assurances from the Boardmdashwithin a few days
after its May 10 2011 meetingmdashthat it will work in good faith to improve the amount of
information in both its closed session resolutions and minutes If the Boardrsquos agenda is already
set for the May 10 2011 meeting please at least acknowledge this letter and let me know the
date of the meeting at which it will be considered
Thank you very much for your attention to this matter I look forward to hearing from
you
Sincerely
John Paff
cc Philip E Stern Esq w enc (via e-mail to psternasgllawcom )
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 39 of 77
RUNNEMEDE BOARD OF EDUCATIONRESOLUTION NO ___________
AUTHORIZING EXECUTIVE SESSION
WHEREAS while the Sen Byron M Baer Open Public Meetings Act (NJSA 104-6 et seq) requires allmeetings of the Runnemede Board of Education to be held in public NJSA 104-12(b) sets forth nine (9)types of matters that may lawfully be discussed in ldquoExecutive Sessionrdquo ie without the public beingpermitted to attend and
WHEREAS the Runnemede Board of Education has determined that _____ (insert number) issues arepermitted by NJSA 104-12(b) to be discussed without the public in attendance shall be discussed duringan Executive Session to be held on _________________________ 20____ at _______ PM and
WHEREAS the nine (9) exceptions to public meetings set forth in NJSA 104-12(b) are listed below andnext to each exception is a box within which the number of issues to be privately discussed that fall withinthat exception shall be written and after each exception is a space where additional information that willdisclose as much information about the discussion as possible without undermining the purpose of theexception shall be written
ldquo(1) Any matter which by express provision of Federal law State statute or rule of courtshall be rendered confidential or excluded from public discussionrdquo The legal citation to theprovision(s) at issue is__________________________ and the nature of the matter described asspecifically as possible without undermining the need for confidentiality is _______________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(2) Any matter in which the release of information would impair a right to receive fundsfrom the federal governmentrdquo The nature of the matter described as specifically as possiblewithout undermining the need for confidentiality is _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(3) Any material the disclosure of which constitutes an unwarranted invasion of individualprivacy such as any records data reports recommendations or other personal material ofany educational training social service medical health custodial child protectionrehabilitation legal defense welfare housing relocation insurance and similar program orinstitution operated by a public body pertaining to any specific individual admitted to orserved by such institution or program including but not limited to information relative tothe individuals personal and family circumstances and any material pertaining toadmission discharge treatment progress or condition of any individual unless theindividual concerned (or in the case of a minor or incompetent his guardian) shall requestin writing that the same be disclosed publiclyrdquo The nature of the matter described asspecifically as possible without undermining the need for confidentiality is______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(4) Any collective bargaining agreement or the terms and conditions of which are proposedfor inclusion in any collective bargaining agreement including the negotiation of terms andconditions with employees or representatives of employees of the public bodyrdquo The collectivebargaining contract(s) discussed are between the Board and ____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Exhibit Page 1Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 40 of 77
ldquo(5) Any matter involving the purchase lease or acquisition of real property with publicfunds the setting of bank rates or investment of public funds where it could adversely affectthe public interest if discussion of such matters were disclosedrdquo The nature of the matterdescribed as specifically as possible without undermining the need for confidentiality is____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(6) Any tactics and techniques utilized in protecting the safety and property of the publicprovided that their disclosure could impair such protection Any investigations of violationsor possible violations of the lawrdquo The nature of the matter described as specifically as possiblewithout undermining the need for confidentiality is ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(7) Any pending or anticipated litigation or contract negotiation in which the public body isor may become a party Any matters falling within the attorney-client privilege to the extentthat confidentiality is required in order for the attorney to exercise his ethicalduties as a lawyerrdquo The parties to and docket numbers of each item of litigation andor theparties to each contract discussed are __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ andnature of the discussion described as specifically as possible without undermining the need forconfidentiality is ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(8) Any matter involving the employment appointment termination of employment termsand conditions of employment evaluation of the performance promotion or disciplining ofany specific prospective public officer or employee or current public officer or employeeemployed or appointed by the public body unless all individual employees or appointees whoserights could be adversely affected request in writing that such matter or matters be discussed ata public meetingrdquo Subject to the balancing of the publicrsquos interest and the employeersquos privacyrights under South Jersey Publishing Co v New Jersey Expressway Authority 124 NJ 478 theemployee(s) and nature of the discussion described as specifically as possible withoutundermining the need for confidentiality are _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(9) Any deliberation of a public body occurring after a public hearing that may result in theimposition of a specific civil penalty upon the responding party or the suspension or loss of alicense or permit belonging to the responding party as a result of an act of omission forwhich the responding party bears responsibilityrdquo The nature of the matter described asspecifically as possible without undermining the need for confidentiality is______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
WHEREAS the length of the Executive Session is estimated to be ________ minutes after which the publicmeeting of the Board shall (circle one) reconvene and immediately adjourn or reconvene and proceed withbusiness
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Runnemede Board of Education will go into ExecutiveSession for only the above stated reasons
Exhibit Page 2Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 41 of 77
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board hereby declares that its discussion of the aforementionedsubject(s) will be made public at a time when the publicrsquos interest in disclosure is greater than any privacy orgovernmental interest being protected from disclosure For each of the above items the estimated date bywhich such disclosure can be made andor the occurrence that needs to take place before disclosure can bemade are listed below (attach separate sheet if necessary)
Subject of Discussion Estimated Date Necessary Occurrence
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Clerk at the present public meeting shall read aloud enough ofthis resolution so that members of the public in attendance can understand as precisely as possible thenature of the matters that will privately discussed
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Clerk on the next business day following this meeting shallfurnish a copy of this resolution to any member of the public who requests one at the fees allowed byNJSA 471A-1 et seq
_________________________________Board President
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS ATRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTIONAPPROVED BY THE RUNNEMEDE BOARD OF EDUCATION AT ITSPUBLIC MEETING HELD ON ______________________20___
_______________________________________Board Secretary
Exhibit Page 3Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 42 of 77
Exhibit Page 4Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 43 of 77
Exhibit Page 5Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 44 of 77
Exhibit Page 6Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 45 of 77
Exhibit Page 7Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 46 of 77
Exhibit Page 8Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 47 of 77
Exhibit Page 9Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 48 of 77
Subject Records RequestFrom John Paff ltpaffpoboxcomgtDate Sat 07 May 2011 161444 -0400To vcarmodyrunnemedeschoolsorgCC psternasgllawcom
Ms Carmody
Please accept this e-mail as my request for government records inaccordance with the Open Public Records Act (OPRA) and the commonlaw right of access Please respond and send all responsivedocuments to me via e-mail at paffpoboxcom If e-mail is notpossible please fax responses and responsive records to me at908-325-0129 Also I would appreciate it if you wouldacknowledge your receipt of this e-mail
Background
In response to a records request I recently received redactedexecutive session minutes for the following dates July 28 2010(first session) August 26 2010 February 2 2011 February 232011 (two sessions) and March 2 2011 Although Mr Stern providedme with a sheet entitled Documents Exempt From OPRA request thatpurports to explain these redactions I am still unclear as to whythe matter was redacted and whether it was lawfully redacted
First I dont understand references such as NJSA 471A-11(12)(c) The version of OPRA that I have (plus every other oneIve seen) does not have internal numbers within NJSA471A-11 Am I correct that NJSA 471A-11(12)(c) isintended to refer to the exemption for records in connection withcollective negotiations including documents and statements ofstrategy or negotiating position and that NJSA 471A-11(7)is intended to refer to any record within the attorney-clientprivilege This paragraph shall not be construed as exempting fromaccess attorney or consultant bills or invoices except that suchbills or invoices may be redacted to remove any informationprotected by the attorney-client privilege Please advise
Second even if I correctly corresponded the claimed exemptions tothe OPRA statute I have no way of knowing whether the mattersredacted are actually exempt from access When a custodiansuppresses any portion of any requested record NJSA471A-5(g) requires him or her to state the ldquospecific basisrdquo foreach suppressed element Beyond stating the ldquospecific basisrdquo foreach suppressed element he or she is required to ldquoproduce
Records Request
1 of 2 622011 810 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 49 of 77
specific reliable evidence sufficient to meet a statutorilyrecognized basis for confidentialityrdquo Courier News v HunterdonCounty Prosecutorrsquos Office 358 NJ Super 373 382-83 (App Div2003) Further he or she must explain each suppression in amanner that ldquowill enable other parties to assess the applicabilityof the privilege or protectionrdquo Paff v New Jersey Department ofLabor Board of Review 379 NJ Super 346 354-55 (2005)(quoting R 410-2(e))
Records requested
Runnemede Board of Education minutes for the following dates July28 2010 (728 pm session only) August 26 2010 February 22011 February 23 2011 (both sessions) and March 2 2011 Iwould like these minutes redacted as narrowly as possible if atall For each redaction I request a written explanation thatmeets the requirements of the case law cited above
cc Phil Stern
Records Request
2 of 2 622011 810 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 50 of 77
Subject Re Fwd Runnemede Board of Education Open PublicMeetings ActFrom John Paff ltpaffpoboxcomgtDate Mon 09 May 2011 134726 -0400To Nancy Ward ltnwardrunnemedeschoolsorggt
Thank you
On 592011 116 PM Nancy Ward wrote
Mr Paff
The Board has named me Custodian of Records Please direct allfuturecommunication to me The May 10 2011 meeting is theRe-organization ofthe Runnemede Board of Education The agenda is set and is verycomprehensive I intend to defer the letter and any discussionregardingits content to the next regular meeting the date of which willbe setat the re-organization tomorrow night In keeping with thedistrictsmeeting pattern that will be May 25 2011
Nancy BWard EdD
Superintendent of Schools
-----Original Message-----From John PaffSent 572011 42300 PMTo nwardrunnemedeschoolsorgCc vcarmodyrunnemedeschoolsorg psternasgllawcomSubject Fwd Runnemede Board of Education Open Public MeetingsAct
Here is another e-mail in case my original one should have beendirected to Ms Ward and not Ms Carmody
JP
-------- Original Message --------Subject Runnemede Board of Education Open Public Meetings ActDate Sat 07 May 2011 152319 -0400From John Paff
Re Fwd Runnemede Board of Education Open Public Meetings Act
1 of 2 622011 811 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 51 of 77
Reply-To paffpoboxcomTo vcarmodyrunnemedeschoolsorg psternasgllawcom
Ms Carmody and Mr Stern
Attached is a letter that I would like the Board to consider atits May10 2011 meeting Would you please a) acknowledge receipt of theletterand b) distribute it to all the Board members
Note that the last paragraph of the letter indicates that I willfilesuit against the Board if the issues in the letter arentaddressedSo if the Boards agenda for the May 10th meeting is so tightthat myletter cannot be accommodated please advise me of such andprovide ameeting date where my letter will be addressed so that I knowthat I amnot being ignored
Thank you
John Paff ChairmanNew Jersey Libertarian PartysOpen Government Advocacy Project
Re Fwd Runnemede Board of Education Open Public Meetings Act
2 of 2 622011 811 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 52 of 77
Subject OPRA RequestFrom Philip Stern ltpsternasgllawcomgtDate Fri 20 May 2011 161015 -0500To paffpoboxcom ltpaffpoboxcomgtCC Nancy Ward ltnwardrunnemedeschoolsorggt
Mr Paff please find attached to this email a response to your request forbusiness records Please note that in providing you with the attachedrecords the Runnemede Borough Board of Education waives no rightsregarding the attorney-client privilege Do not hesitate to call me if youhave any questions Phil Stern
Philip E SternAdams Stern Gutierrez amp Lattiboudere LLCThe Legal Center1037 Raymond Blvd Suite 710Newark New Jersey 07102(973) 735-2742 (office telephone)(201) 914-2415 (cellular telephone)(973) 735-2743 (office telefax)
May 20 Paff responsepdf
Content-DescriptionMay 20 Paffresponsepdf
Content-Type applicationpdf
Content-Encoding base64
OPRA Request
1 of 1 622011 815 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 53 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 54 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 55 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 56 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 57 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 58 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 59 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 60 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 61 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 62 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 63 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 64 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 65 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 66 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 67 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 68 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 69 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 70 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 71 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 72 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 73 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 74 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 75 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 76 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 77 of 77
- Civil Complaint
- Exhibits
-
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 24 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 25 of 77
Idled officials payout riles Runnemede
By BARBARA S ROTHSCHILD bull Courier-Post Staff bull March 5 2011
RUNNEMEDE mdash Although the school district is paying Business Administrator Kelly PetersBrazelton her full salary to stay home while paying for an interim employee RunnemedeSuperintendent Nancy Ward said it could have cost more not to have a separationagreement
New Jersey is a very litigious state she said In order to avoid litigation which neveris a good thing a separation agreement gives you a certain outcome
Brazelton a Deptford resident and the former business administrator for the SomerdalePublic School District began working for Runnemede schools in August 2008 Her mostrecent contract for July 1 2010 through June 30 is for $99465 plus benefits
But the relationship soured and the district would not comment on specifics citingconfidentiality
A letter from staff members written to Ward and the school board in July 2010 gaveexamples of a hostile work environment that they said was created by the businessadministrator
Brazelton could not be reached Her attorney Joseph Betley of Mount Laurel said hisclient signed the separation agreement in good faith
There was a disagreement between the board and Kelly he said It was resolved andboth sides decided to move on
She disputes any and all allegations regarding a hostile work environment It wassimply Kelly doing her job
The separation agreement and release dated Oct 20 stipulates Brazelton be placed ona paid leave of absence from Sept 23 to April 15 at which time she would irrevocablyresign
School board President Colleen Kurth said it was much easier to go with a separationagreement than pay more legal fees
She compared paying Brazelton to paying a teacher out sick while a substitute fills in
The job just has to go on Kurth said
Interim Business Administrator Valerie Carmody who retired from the same post in EastGreenwich last year was hired Dec 1 at $60 per hour 24 hours maximum per weekHer contract ends June 30
New Jersey School Boards Association spokesman Mike Yaple said such separationagreements are infrequent
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 26 of 77
No school board willingly enters into an agreement like this he insisted But eventhough its not a popular decision its the lesser of two evils
Residents unhappy about the districts handling of the situation include Dan Conard ajournalism student at Rowan University Conard writes a blog where he discusses schooldistrict and municipal matters To comment on this topic he filed Open Public RecordsAct (OPRA) document requests
I just wanted to get it out there so people know what is going on Conard said
Ward said she has no quarrel with the student but believes Brazeltons case is anunusual circumstance
It (the separation agreement) was the most responsible thing the district could havedone she insisted Was it a bitter pill to swallow It took the board (a while) beforethey felt it was something they could do but it makes the most sense
Ward said the part-time arrangement with Carmody is working out well and that as thedistrict improves efficiency it is unlikely another full-time business administrator will behired particularly when Executive County Superintendent Peggy Nicolosi has advisedagainst it
Among the options being considered are another part-time business administrator or ashared-service agreement with another district
Ward said she would have preferred the money being expended in this case be spent oneducational programs and teachers particularly this year
Although voters passed Runnemedes 2010-11 budget while many others were defeatedlast April the district of 853 students in K-8 lost six staffers and streamlined its gifted-and-talented program after state aid was cut
Ward also defended the decision to keep a maintenance techniciansupervisor positioncreated in 2008 noting it has saved at least $145000 each year
Mark Speck of Voorhees earns $50000 in the post Through June 2010 it was filled byDoug McGarry a former building and grounds supervisor in the Somerdale district Heearned $60000 in Runnemede but had more experience than Speck Ward said
Before Brazelton arrived in Runnemede the business administrator also served asmaintenance supervisor Ward said that actually cost the district more because it had topay outside maintenance workers sometimes for faulty work
Many things had been done to the facilities that were not to the boards satisfactionshe said That first year with our own maintenance person we saved $145000 becausewe hired a person who fixed things
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 27 of 77
Speck works with vendors going over bids and quotes and also does minor repairs thatno longer have to be paid for piecemeal Ward said the position is staying in the 2011-2012 budget adopted preliminarily on Wednesday
Hes the guy whos here at 4 am making sure weve got snow plows when we needthem Ward said Hes dirty and sweaty -- and hes excellent
Ward said the budget sent to the county includes a $78 annual tax increase for theowner of a home assessed at the $97800 borough average but does not cut staff orprograms
Kurth hopes to tweak the budget and lower the tax hike before it is introduced to thepublic on March 23 But she agreed the maintenance supervisor will stay
That was an investment on the part of the school district Kurth said
Reach Barbara S Rothschild at (856) 486-2416 or barothschildcamdengannettcom
--Comments
User Imageamonkeycoulddoit wroteThe mayor cant hear you because she doesnt even know how to turn on a computerNot that it was a requirement that the mayor should know how to use one I think theonly requirement is that they have a pulse And she does but barely372011 12406 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imageamonkeycoulddoit wroteTo sickofpolsnj it does seem that snoopysam has some inside information And whenyou say hows that mayors race looking I hope that you dont mean that someone fromthe disfunctional school board is going to run for mayor or council or some other electedposition considering the mess that they made on the school board372011 11832 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imageamonkeycoulddoit wroteIf the school board president had listened to staff when the hostil work enviroment issuestarted then she might not be in this pickle She should have spent the money on thelegal fees because if everything is true about the hostile enviroment then they wouldhave won the lawsuit hands down and not had to pay out anything and gotten their legalfees back Another example of elected officials not capable of doing the job they are inLets hope that some people come out of the woodwork to run for school board peoplewho care about the kids and the taxpayers372011 11309 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imageamonkeycoulddoit wrote
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 28 of 77
The school boad is not as inept as the mayor and council You dont have to be a collegegraduate or or even be able to read or write to get an elected position in runnemedeThe 2 new council members got elected because the are involved in the union andeveryone who supports the union came out to vote And the new mayor must have a lotof friends But now after the few months they have been in office it is clear to see thatthey are not able to handle the job Mayor14 is right that the people of Runnemedevoted because they thought they would get something in return for their vote but itlooks like they were wrong In the upcoming elections for school board and council votefor the person who will do the best job whether you like them or not Dont just vote forsomeone because you are told to372011 10214 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagethemayor14 wrotei am so glad this article was written and it clearly points out how inept the runnemedeboard of education actually is the board of education is not elected based on businessand education talent the elections are nothing more than a popularity contest i dontknow how other towns operate but runnemede boro is a total joke when it come toelections be it school board or general elections i wish everyone would get their headsout of their A$$ and truly investigate the school board canidates that are running forelection VOTE WITH YOUR HEAD NOT WITH YOUR HEART362011 91350 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagesavetheschools wroteSeveral people are running for the board for four open seats I signed a petition todayfor a new woman running Members are not paid If you live in Runnemede shopstewardyou have until Tuesday to get a petition submitted I asked and found out there is only 5people on average at the BOE meetings every month in Runnemede I hope more peoplestart to go I plan on it myself And we all need to go every month not just when weread negative press about our schools That is the only way we would all stay informedand not rely on the young man submitting OPRA requests Our town has always beenabout the kids and it needs to get back that way362011 80936 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser ImageShopsteward wroteWhy did it take one young man sending in OPRA requests to bring all this to lightWhy are you relying upon him to get to the bottom of it You say The other members(except for the one who was just arrested and resigned) are good people and didnothing wrong to the district and that might be true except for the fact that theyallowed that incredible salary and benefits to be given out and even though all kinds ofrumors were flying around it took an outsider with OPRA requests to bring this ghastlypimple to a head Sounds more like none of them are doing their jobs and should be outof office and off the payroll They should all just resign They arent doing the job thatwas assigned to them362011 32559 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Image
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 29 of 77
Shopsteward wroteA crime was committed here It began with a violation of the Publics trust by the peoplewho allowed this contract to be signed in the first place What a jokeHow many moreof these jobs are hidden in the budgets of our Schools There needs to be a thouroughcleaning of all thses tyeps of employees everywhere At the State County Municipaland Scool board level and the appointed Authorities too Everyone screams about theUnions but whenever you hear of some great big abuse it turns out the person wasnteven in the UnionClean up this mess first Mr Christie before yougo after the little guys It will save us all a lot more money362011 101606 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser ImageShopsteward wroteI still dont get itHow is a part time24 hr a week job worth so much This is aprime example of the waste that is giving the public workers a bad nameThe onlyproblem is it isnt some Union personIts management and its the same all over This isjust the tip of the iceberg they scream about the Unions but the real waste is in jobs likethis oneNo way this job or the thousands of others like it should be paid so well99465 PLUS BENEFITS incrediblethere should be a lawandthe person gets a pension based on that bloated salarytooThere should be other people losing their jobs not for theseperation aggreement but for letting this evenhappen352011 101125 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagethesplits wroteI guess this is Runnemedes version of a shared service352011 73450 PM
User Imagethesplits wroteLooks like its the same old Runnemede and I thought we voted for change Mayor352011 73202 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagesavetheschools wroteFrom what I understand and I live in town the board went into this separationagreement because the BA would have had a potential lawsuit and it would have costthe school district and tax payers a ton of money Much more than they are spendingnow And yes it is one school board member who was apparently corrupt Just one Theyoung man who was mentioned in the article has been OPRA requesting items and willget to the bottom of this situation with the former BA and the certain board memberBut that is just one person The other members (except for the one who was justarrested and resigned) are good people and did nothing wrong to the district Thisformer BA and her friend who was hired as the maint supervisor have been a hot topicfor a few years Ask the employees they were awful and needed to go It is awful thatthis money was not spent on our children It was a trainwreck from the beginning and ifI recall correctly when the hiring took place only one of the members voted no and that
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 30 of 77
was the local high school teacher metioned in another post Runnemede schools arefantastic and maybe the new people running for election will get some answers andmake some changes And maybe the BOE member who was mentioned by employees asbeing the reason why there could be a possible lawsuit should just resign I understandadmin make good money but they also need to be accountable for their actions and ifthe BA made a hostile environment and was supported by one BOE member both shouldbe gonenot just the BA352011 33207 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagecookmom wroteWhere is Gov Christies veto power352011 30321 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagecookmom wroteThis all happened with a local police officer and a FOP member and local high schoolteacher and member of the NJEA on the board The Runnemede Board is looking alotlike the DRPA and was this group picked by the new Mayor352011 30042 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagesickofpolsnj wroteThe real truth is the Board of Education member and Brazelton and the unethicalsituation that THEY created The questionable contracts and underhanded deals There isa certain Board Member that hopes that this ends here well it doesnt There is not aTeacher or employee in Runnemede Schools that would defend Brazelton same goes forSomerdale And many are willing to bring out MANY of the things that Brazelton did todestroy the district The ENTIRE Runnemede School Community is thrilled that Brazeltonis gone Snoopysam is clearly one of two people Kelly or the Board Member shouldwe name names Hows that Mayors race looking352011 114254 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser ImageShopsteward wrote$99465 plus benefits How much does she pay for her share of those benefitsor are they free to her Her replacement only works 24 hours a week are we being toldthat she got that much money for a part time job What is the matter with theidiots that hired her to begin withNo one should get that kind of money for a part timeThat is an awful lot of money for that kind of job We should not be surprised at all Thiskind of thing is everywhere in Camden CountyIts the NORMAL way of doingbusiness352011 113922 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagelookfar111 wroteYep same old story hire someone for $98000 when 10 equally qualified people woulddo it for 60k with a 20 year top out at 75 k Then a sweetheart adios gift And the cherry
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 31 of 77
on top Another tax increase for the people God I hate what the democrat machinehave done to this once great state352011 111649 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser ImageSnoopysam wrotesickofpolsnj you must be on ot those employees that Brazelton held accountable forHER actions You are right there is so much more to this story and when the real truthscome out there will be some emplopyeesadministratorsboard members hanging theirheads in shame Talk about wasting taxpayer dollars take a look at some of the lazyincompetent employees that Brazelton had to deal withand their HUGE mistakes thathad to be corrected which cost the taxpayers thousands upon thousands of dollars352011 94250 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagesickofpolsnj wroteYou are exactly correct A teacher would never get a sweatheart deal like this I wonderwhich Board Member it was that was mentioned in that letter Did you read the blog thatthis all came out on it has way more details than this articlehttpdansviewrunnemedewordpresscom352011 92934 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagesickofpolsnj wroteOnly thing is Runnemede never had these issues Somerdale had the same EXACT issueswith Brazelton Administrators arent allowed to comment however talk to the teachersand employees off record they will tell you all about Kelly352011 92726 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagesickofpolsnj wroteThere is so much more to this story I hope the CP will run a follow up 1 Look into therealtionship and hiring surrounding Doug the maintenance supervisor 2 Check intoBrazeltons past employment Somerdale Schools 3 Brazelton is rumored to be hired atthe completion of the settlement in Deptford 4 Look into unethical practices between aBoard Member and Brazelton 5 And what about the other Board member that wasrecently charged with a serious crime352011 92315 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imageicallbullschit wroteOnce again the government tries to pin their mistakes on an individual when they screwup royally What the paper fails to report is the other side Maybe years and years ofmismanagement and patronage were uncovered and it became a hostile environmentwhen people got called on their actions and the same old routine was stopped Maybethe school board realized it would be cheaper to pay one than to pay many for theirmistakes Maybe the school board was willing to pay in order to keep their dirty littlesecrets covered up Maybe the resident should look deeper into the actions of the schoolboard and the rest of the administration Maybe I am wrong but it seems that the board
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 32 of 77
got called on some issues and now they are attacking one individual to cover theirtracks They seem to be acting like the GREAT WIZARD OF OZ Pay no attention to theidiots behind the curtain we are the all powerful and all knowing school board Pull backthe curtain people because there are people behind there that are faking their waythrough and going to wind up costing the district millions Just saying352011 85642 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagecookmom wroteSchool board President Colleen Kurth said it was much easier to go with a separationagreement than pay more legal fees She compared paying Brazelton to paying ateacher out sick while a substitute fills in The job just has to go on Kurth said I amconfused A teacher out SICK is NOT the same as a HOSTILE work enviorment How cana medical condition be compared to a person being accused of a hostile workenviorment A teacher would be REQUIRED to use their sick days~ since this is beingcompared to an illness ~was Brazelton REQUIRED to give up her sickvacation pay orwas that part of the dealWas she also paid for those days Wouldnt we all love to becollecting a salary from two towns As now she is being paid by Runnemde AND acurrent SCHOOL district where she is currently employed THIS is the waste in ourSchool districts352011 83552 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imageneocon wroteShe is part of the Protected Classes All you need to know is that she is better thanyou so just keep moveing along Nothing to see here352011 81912 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report Abuse
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 33 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 34 of 77
New Jersey Libertarian PartyOpen Government Advocacy Project
John Paff Chairman
PO Box 5424
Somerset NJ 08875-5424
Phone 732-873-1251 - Fax 908-325-0129
Email lpsmcpoboxcom
May 7 2011
Hon Colleen Kurth President and members of the
Runnemede Board of Education
505 W Third Ave
Runnemede NJ 08078 (via e-mail to vcarmodyrunnemedeschoolsorg )
Dear President Kurth and Board members
I write both individually and on behalf the New Jersey Libertarian Partys Open
Government Advocacy Project to comment on 1) the manner in which the Board of Education
goes into nonpublic (ie executive or closed) session and 2) the level of detail contained within
the Boardrsquos executive session minutes
Issue 1 Executive Session resolutions
As you are aware the Senator Byron M Baer Open Public Meetings Act requires public
bodies such as the Runnemede Board of Education to publicly pass a resolution before
excluding the public from a meeting The statute that requires the resolution states
NJSA 104-13mdashClosed meetings resolution to conduct
No public body shall exclude the public from any meeting to discuss any
matter described in subsection 7 b (104-12) until the public body shall
first adopt a resolution at a meeting to which the public shall be admitted
a Stating the general nature of the subject to be discussed and
b Stating as precisely as possible the time when and the circumstances
under which the discussion conducted in closed session of the public body
can be disclosed to the public
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 35 of 77
2
By way of a recent records request I received resolutions which purport to authorize
executive sessions intended to be held by the Board of Education on July 28 2010 (2 sessions)
August 20 2010 February 2 1011 February 23 2011 (2 sessions) and March 2 2011 Those
resolutions which are virtually identical to each other state
Executive Session to discuss student matters personnel contractual and
legal matters [time and a statement as to whether action will be
taken]
[identity of maker of motion etc]
Resolved that pursuant to Section 8 of the Public Meetings Act the public
shall be excluded from that portion of the meeting involving the discussion
of personnel legal and contractual matters Further resolved that
discussion of such subject matters discussed in Executive Session can be
disclosed to public upon official action if any at the conclusion of the
executive session or at a public session at some later date
I dont think that this form of resolution satisfies NJSA 104-13 because it gives the
public no real sense of what is being privately discussed1 To paraphrase the highest court of of
another state a body which only announces ldquolegal mattersrdquo or ldquopersonnel negotiationsrdquo for
going into executive session has said nothing It might has well have stated to the audience
ldquoLadies and gentlemen we are going into executive sessionrdquo and stopped there Hinds County
Board of Supervisors v Common Cause of Mississippi 551 So2d 107 114 (MS 1989)
Of course there can be no dispute that the Board of Education often has legitimate
reasons to meet in nonpublic session Among these reasons is the need to prevent the adverse
parties in litigation or contract negotiations from gaining an unfair advantage and to allow
members of the governing body to debate and deliberate personnel matters without public
scrutiny or participation But the need to discuss matters privately should not prevent the
public from being informed as precisely as possible of the topics that are being privately
discussed
For example suppose that Runnemede Board is being sued by a Mr Jones who was
injured after he slipped and fell on what he claims to be negligently maintained school
property Since the lawsuit is already a public record there is no public purpose served by
vaguely describing a private discussion of it as ldquostudent matters personnel contractual and
legal mattersrdquo Rather the resolution should at the very least describe the private discussion as
1 In January 2007 when I most recently litigated this issue Middlesex County Superior Court Judge Alexander P
Waugh issued a written decision in which he agreed with other court decisions that closed session resolutions
should contain as much information as is consistent with full public knowledge without doing any harm to the
public interest Judge Waughs decision and other case documents are on the Web at
httpogtfarchiveorgOGTFMonroeBOEWebreadypdf
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 36 of 77
3
ldquoDiscussion of slip and fall negligence suit Jones v Runnemede Board Docket No CAM-L-
012345-11rdquo This way the public has a very good sense of what the Boardrsquos private discussion is
about while the ability of the Board to develop its lawsuit strategy is not undermined
Using the same example suppose that Jonesrsquo attorney sent the Boardrsquos attorney an offer
to fully settle the lawsuit upon the Boardrsquos payment of $20000 While the Board would
obviously need to discuss how to respond to the offer in private lest Jones or his attorney
would be in the audience witnessing the discussion there is no reason why the public cannot be
informed in the NJSA 104-13 resolution that the Board will meet in private to discuss ldquoa
settlement offer received from the Plaintiff in the slip and fall negligence suit known as Jones v
Runnemede Board Docket No CAM-L-012345-11 in which the Plaintiff offers to settle the suit
in exchange for the Board paying him $20000rdquo While it may initially seem that this would
provide ldquotoo muchrdquo information to the public this concern disappears once it is realized that
the sole purpose of the exception2 that allows litigation matters to be discussed in private is to
keep the adverse party to the litigation in the dark regarding the Boardrsquos position3 Since in this
example the adverse party (ie Jones) already knows that he offered to settle the lawsuit for
$20000 there is no legitimate reason why the public should not also know of the tendered
settlement offer
As another example suppose that a personnel matter such as whether or not a Mrs
Smith a public works employee should be disciplined because of repeatedly arriving late to
work is to be discussed in closed session In such a case the amount of detail set forth in the
NJSA 104-13 resolution should correspond to the amount of detail that the Board and its
attorney predict will be publicly disclosed in the closed meetingrsquos minutes when those minutes
are made public
The standard that the Board is to use when determining how much information about a
personnel matter is to be disclosed in the closed sessionrsquos minutes is set forth in South Jersey
Publishing Company Inc v New Jersey Expressway Authority 124 NJ 478 (1991) That
standard is that a) the public needs information if it is properly fulfill its role of evaluating the
wisdom of governmental action or a decision not to act b) that New Jerseys strong public
policy requires that a public bodyrsquos actions and decisions to not act be disclosed in the bodys
closed meeting minutes along with sufficient facts and information to permit the public to
understand and appraise the reasonableness of the bodys determination and c) to the extent a
cognizable privacy interest may be compromised by the required disclosure the extent of
disclosure may be modified through redactions of the minutes provided the public interest in
disclosure is not subverted
2 NJSA104-12(b)(7) is to prevent adverse parties to litigation and contracts from learning the details of the
public bodyrsquos negotiation tactics and litigation strategy3 See the discussion in Paff v Washington Township Docket No MER-L-2205-07 and Nevin v Asbury Park City
Board 2005 WL 2847974 (App Div November 1 2005) which are on-line at
httpogtfarchiveorgOGTFWashingtonpdf (Nevin begins at page 44 of the PDF file at the link)
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 37 of 77
4
Thus regardless of whether the Board disciplines Ms Smith or chooses to not impose
discipline due to her lateness the outcome should be recorded in the closed meeting minutes
The question of whether that entry in the minutes should be redacted before the minutes are
made public requires a balancing of Ms Smithrsquos interest in keeping the disciplinary matter
private against the publicrsquos interest in effectively monitoring the Board If the Board with
counselrsquos advice determines after balancing these interests that the outcome will be published
unredacted in the closed sessionrsquos minutes (ie if the minutes will disclose to the public eg that
ldquoMs Smith was suspended for three days on account of her habitual latenessrdquo) then the exact
nature of the matter (ie that ldquothe Board will discuss disciplining Ms Smith for excessive
latenessrdquo) should be set forth in the closed meetingrsquos NJSA 104-13 resolution Inversely if the
Board determines that Ms Smithrsquos privacy interest exceeds the publicrsquos right to know then less
information (eg ldquothe Board will discuss disciplining an employee for excessive latenessrdquo)
should be set forth in the closed meetingrsquos NJSA 104-13 resolution
In other words if the officer or employee being discussed doesnt have a privacy interest
sufficient to withstand a citizens request for the executive session minutes why should not the
public know the topic of the executive session prior to it occurring
Irsquove attached as Exhibit pages 1 -3 is a model resolution that I would like the Board to
use in the future
Issue 2 Executive Session minutes
Attached as Exhibit Page 4 as an example are the Boardrsquos July 28 2010 executive session
minutes It is troubling that a meeting that lasted over an hour is being summed up in a single
sentence ldquoMr Phil Stern addressed the Board of Education about personnel issuesrdquo These
minutes are not ldquoreasonably comprehensiblerdquo as required by NJSA 104-14
The purpose of closed meeting minutes is not merely to inform the public of whatoccurred during the private session but also to create a record for the Board membersthemselves A Board member who is newly elected in 2012 should be able by referringsolely to the minutes to figure out what issues the Board addressed during any previouslyheld closed meeting This hypothetical Board member after reading the July 28 2010closed minutes could not possibly figure out which employees or officials Mr Stern wastalking about
Better practice would be to record closed minutes that are much morecomprehensive but to redact that material that must be shielded from public view Forexample the minutes could have said
Mr Stern addressed the Board of Education about the habitualtardiness of 2nd grade teacher Mary Doe and her propensity to eatlibrary paste and scream hysterically during fire drills Herecommended that she be sent for psychiatric evaluation
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 38 of 77
5
Of course if a member of the public requested these hypothetical minutes the Boardmay need to redact them in order to protect privacy interests The point however is thatregardless of whether unredacted closed meeting minutes are ever released to the publicthey should contain sufficient details so that the Board members themselves can monthsor years later know what was discussed
Attached as Exhibit pages 5 ndash 9 is an order recently entered in Schmidt et al v City of
Gloucester City et al Docket No CAM-L-1287-11 As you can see paraA(3) supports my position
that the Boardrsquos minutes are not ldquoreasonably comprehensiblerdquo as required by law
Conclusion
Since some public bodies do not take my requests for Meetings Act compliance seriously
I regret having to inform the Board that I will sue for declaratory and injunctive relief in
accordance with NJSA 104-16 unless I receive assurances from the Boardmdashwithin a few days
after its May 10 2011 meetingmdashthat it will work in good faith to improve the amount of
information in both its closed session resolutions and minutes If the Boardrsquos agenda is already
set for the May 10 2011 meeting please at least acknowledge this letter and let me know the
date of the meeting at which it will be considered
Thank you very much for your attention to this matter I look forward to hearing from
you
Sincerely
John Paff
cc Philip E Stern Esq w enc (via e-mail to psternasgllawcom )
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 39 of 77
RUNNEMEDE BOARD OF EDUCATIONRESOLUTION NO ___________
AUTHORIZING EXECUTIVE SESSION
WHEREAS while the Sen Byron M Baer Open Public Meetings Act (NJSA 104-6 et seq) requires allmeetings of the Runnemede Board of Education to be held in public NJSA 104-12(b) sets forth nine (9)types of matters that may lawfully be discussed in ldquoExecutive Sessionrdquo ie without the public beingpermitted to attend and
WHEREAS the Runnemede Board of Education has determined that _____ (insert number) issues arepermitted by NJSA 104-12(b) to be discussed without the public in attendance shall be discussed duringan Executive Session to be held on _________________________ 20____ at _______ PM and
WHEREAS the nine (9) exceptions to public meetings set forth in NJSA 104-12(b) are listed below andnext to each exception is a box within which the number of issues to be privately discussed that fall withinthat exception shall be written and after each exception is a space where additional information that willdisclose as much information about the discussion as possible without undermining the purpose of theexception shall be written
ldquo(1) Any matter which by express provision of Federal law State statute or rule of courtshall be rendered confidential or excluded from public discussionrdquo The legal citation to theprovision(s) at issue is__________________________ and the nature of the matter described asspecifically as possible without undermining the need for confidentiality is _______________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(2) Any matter in which the release of information would impair a right to receive fundsfrom the federal governmentrdquo The nature of the matter described as specifically as possiblewithout undermining the need for confidentiality is _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(3) Any material the disclosure of which constitutes an unwarranted invasion of individualprivacy such as any records data reports recommendations or other personal material ofany educational training social service medical health custodial child protectionrehabilitation legal defense welfare housing relocation insurance and similar program orinstitution operated by a public body pertaining to any specific individual admitted to orserved by such institution or program including but not limited to information relative tothe individuals personal and family circumstances and any material pertaining toadmission discharge treatment progress or condition of any individual unless theindividual concerned (or in the case of a minor or incompetent his guardian) shall requestin writing that the same be disclosed publiclyrdquo The nature of the matter described asspecifically as possible without undermining the need for confidentiality is______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(4) Any collective bargaining agreement or the terms and conditions of which are proposedfor inclusion in any collective bargaining agreement including the negotiation of terms andconditions with employees or representatives of employees of the public bodyrdquo The collectivebargaining contract(s) discussed are between the Board and ____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Exhibit Page 1Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 40 of 77
ldquo(5) Any matter involving the purchase lease or acquisition of real property with publicfunds the setting of bank rates or investment of public funds where it could adversely affectthe public interest if discussion of such matters were disclosedrdquo The nature of the matterdescribed as specifically as possible without undermining the need for confidentiality is____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(6) Any tactics and techniques utilized in protecting the safety and property of the publicprovided that their disclosure could impair such protection Any investigations of violationsor possible violations of the lawrdquo The nature of the matter described as specifically as possiblewithout undermining the need for confidentiality is ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(7) Any pending or anticipated litigation or contract negotiation in which the public body isor may become a party Any matters falling within the attorney-client privilege to the extentthat confidentiality is required in order for the attorney to exercise his ethicalduties as a lawyerrdquo The parties to and docket numbers of each item of litigation andor theparties to each contract discussed are __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ andnature of the discussion described as specifically as possible without undermining the need forconfidentiality is ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(8) Any matter involving the employment appointment termination of employment termsand conditions of employment evaluation of the performance promotion or disciplining ofany specific prospective public officer or employee or current public officer or employeeemployed or appointed by the public body unless all individual employees or appointees whoserights could be adversely affected request in writing that such matter or matters be discussed ata public meetingrdquo Subject to the balancing of the publicrsquos interest and the employeersquos privacyrights under South Jersey Publishing Co v New Jersey Expressway Authority 124 NJ 478 theemployee(s) and nature of the discussion described as specifically as possible withoutundermining the need for confidentiality are _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(9) Any deliberation of a public body occurring after a public hearing that may result in theimposition of a specific civil penalty upon the responding party or the suspension or loss of alicense or permit belonging to the responding party as a result of an act of omission forwhich the responding party bears responsibilityrdquo The nature of the matter described asspecifically as possible without undermining the need for confidentiality is______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
WHEREAS the length of the Executive Session is estimated to be ________ minutes after which the publicmeeting of the Board shall (circle one) reconvene and immediately adjourn or reconvene and proceed withbusiness
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Runnemede Board of Education will go into ExecutiveSession for only the above stated reasons
Exhibit Page 2Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 41 of 77
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board hereby declares that its discussion of the aforementionedsubject(s) will be made public at a time when the publicrsquos interest in disclosure is greater than any privacy orgovernmental interest being protected from disclosure For each of the above items the estimated date bywhich such disclosure can be made andor the occurrence that needs to take place before disclosure can bemade are listed below (attach separate sheet if necessary)
Subject of Discussion Estimated Date Necessary Occurrence
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Clerk at the present public meeting shall read aloud enough ofthis resolution so that members of the public in attendance can understand as precisely as possible thenature of the matters that will privately discussed
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Clerk on the next business day following this meeting shallfurnish a copy of this resolution to any member of the public who requests one at the fees allowed byNJSA 471A-1 et seq
_________________________________Board President
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS ATRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTIONAPPROVED BY THE RUNNEMEDE BOARD OF EDUCATION AT ITSPUBLIC MEETING HELD ON ______________________20___
_______________________________________Board Secretary
Exhibit Page 3Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 42 of 77
Exhibit Page 4Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 43 of 77
Exhibit Page 5Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 44 of 77
Exhibit Page 6Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 45 of 77
Exhibit Page 7Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 46 of 77
Exhibit Page 8Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 47 of 77
Exhibit Page 9Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 48 of 77
Subject Records RequestFrom John Paff ltpaffpoboxcomgtDate Sat 07 May 2011 161444 -0400To vcarmodyrunnemedeschoolsorgCC psternasgllawcom
Ms Carmody
Please accept this e-mail as my request for government records inaccordance with the Open Public Records Act (OPRA) and the commonlaw right of access Please respond and send all responsivedocuments to me via e-mail at paffpoboxcom If e-mail is notpossible please fax responses and responsive records to me at908-325-0129 Also I would appreciate it if you wouldacknowledge your receipt of this e-mail
Background
In response to a records request I recently received redactedexecutive session minutes for the following dates July 28 2010(first session) August 26 2010 February 2 2011 February 232011 (two sessions) and March 2 2011 Although Mr Stern providedme with a sheet entitled Documents Exempt From OPRA request thatpurports to explain these redactions I am still unclear as to whythe matter was redacted and whether it was lawfully redacted
First I dont understand references such as NJSA 471A-11(12)(c) The version of OPRA that I have (plus every other oneIve seen) does not have internal numbers within NJSA471A-11 Am I correct that NJSA 471A-11(12)(c) isintended to refer to the exemption for records in connection withcollective negotiations including documents and statements ofstrategy or negotiating position and that NJSA 471A-11(7)is intended to refer to any record within the attorney-clientprivilege This paragraph shall not be construed as exempting fromaccess attorney or consultant bills or invoices except that suchbills or invoices may be redacted to remove any informationprotected by the attorney-client privilege Please advise
Second even if I correctly corresponded the claimed exemptions tothe OPRA statute I have no way of knowing whether the mattersredacted are actually exempt from access When a custodiansuppresses any portion of any requested record NJSA471A-5(g) requires him or her to state the ldquospecific basisrdquo foreach suppressed element Beyond stating the ldquospecific basisrdquo foreach suppressed element he or she is required to ldquoproduce
Records Request
1 of 2 622011 810 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 49 of 77
specific reliable evidence sufficient to meet a statutorilyrecognized basis for confidentialityrdquo Courier News v HunterdonCounty Prosecutorrsquos Office 358 NJ Super 373 382-83 (App Div2003) Further he or she must explain each suppression in amanner that ldquowill enable other parties to assess the applicabilityof the privilege or protectionrdquo Paff v New Jersey Department ofLabor Board of Review 379 NJ Super 346 354-55 (2005)(quoting R 410-2(e))
Records requested
Runnemede Board of Education minutes for the following dates July28 2010 (728 pm session only) August 26 2010 February 22011 February 23 2011 (both sessions) and March 2 2011 Iwould like these minutes redacted as narrowly as possible if atall For each redaction I request a written explanation thatmeets the requirements of the case law cited above
cc Phil Stern
Records Request
2 of 2 622011 810 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 50 of 77
Subject Re Fwd Runnemede Board of Education Open PublicMeetings ActFrom John Paff ltpaffpoboxcomgtDate Mon 09 May 2011 134726 -0400To Nancy Ward ltnwardrunnemedeschoolsorggt
Thank you
On 592011 116 PM Nancy Ward wrote
Mr Paff
The Board has named me Custodian of Records Please direct allfuturecommunication to me The May 10 2011 meeting is theRe-organization ofthe Runnemede Board of Education The agenda is set and is verycomprehensive I intend to defer the letter and any discussionregardingits content to the next regular meeting the date of which willbe setat the re-organization tomorrow night In keeping with thedistrictsmeeting pattern that will be May 25 2011
Nancy BWard EdD
Superintendent of Schools
-----Original Message-----From John PaffSent 572011 42300 PMTo nwardrunnemedeschoolsorgCc vcarmodyrunnemedeschoolsorg psternasgllawcomSubject Fwd Runnemede Board of Education Open Public MeetingsAct
Here is another e-mail in case my original one should have beendirected to Ms Ward and not Ms Carmody
JP
-------- Original Message --------Subject Runnemede Board of Education Open Public Meetings ActDate Sat 07 May 2011 152319 -0400From John Paff
Re Fwd Runnemede Board of Education Open Public Meetings Act
1 of 2 622011 811 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 51 of 77
Reply-To paffpoboxcomTo vcarmodyrunnemedeschoolsorg psternasgllawcom
Ms Carmody and Mr Stern
Attached is a letter that I would like the Board to consider atits May10 2011 meeting Would you please a) acknowledge receipt of theletterand b) distribute it to all the Board members
Note that the last paragraph of the letter indicates that I willfilesuit against the Board if the issues in the letter arentaddressedSo if the Boards agenda for the May 10th meeting is so tightthat myletter cannot be accommodated please advise me of such andprovide ameeting date where my letter will be addressed so that I knowthat I amnot being ignored
Thank you
John Paff ChairmanNew Jersey Libertarian PartysOpen Government Advocacy Project
Re Fwd Runnemede Board of Education Open Public Meetings Act
2 of 2 622011 811 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 52 of 77
Subject OPRA RequestFrom Philip Stern ltpsternasgllawcomgtDate Fri 20 May 2011 161015 -0500To paffpoboxcom ltpaffpoboxcomgtCC Nancy Ward ltnwardrunnemedeschoolsorggt
Mr Paff please find attached to this email a response to your request forbusiness records Please note that in providing you with the attachedrecords the Runnemede Borough Board of Education waives no rightsregarding the attorney-client privilege Do not hesitate to call me if youhave any questions Phil Stern
Philip E SternAdams Stern Gutierrez amp Lattiboudere LLCThe Legal Center1037 Raymond Blvd Suite 710Newark New Jersey 07102(973) 735-2742 (office telephone)(201) 914-2415 (cellular telephone)(973) 735-2743 (office telefax)
May 20 Paff responsepdf
Content-DescriptionMay 20 Paffresponsepdf
Content-Type applicationpdf
Content-Encoding base64
OPRA Request
1 of 1 622011 815 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 53 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 54 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 55 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 56 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 57 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 58 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 59 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 60 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 61 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 62 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 63 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 64 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 65 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 66 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 67 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 68 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 69 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 70 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 71 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 72 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 73 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 74 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 75 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 76 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 77 of 77
- Civil Complaint
- Exhibits
-
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 25 of 77
Idled officials payout riles Runnemede
By BARBARA S ROTHSCHILD bull Courier-Post Staff bull March 5 2011
RUNNEMEDE mdash Although the school district is paying Business Administrator Kelly PetersBrazelton her full salary to stay home while paying for an interim employee RunnemedeSuperintendent Nancy Ward said it could have cost more not to have a separationagreement
New Jersey is a very litigious state she said In order to avoid litigation which neveris a good thing a separation agreement gives you a certain outcome
Brazelton a Deptford resident and the former business administrator for the SomerdalePublic School District began working for Runnemede schools in August 2008 Her mostrecent contract for July 1 2010 through June 30 is for $99465 plus benefits
But the relationship soured and the district would not comment on specifics citingconfidentiality
A letter from staff members written to Ward and the school board in July 2010 gaveexamples of a hostile work environment that they said was created by the businessadministrator
Brazelton could not be reached Her attorney Joseph Betley of Mount Laurel said hisclient signed the separation agreement in good faith
There was a disagreement between the board and Kelly he said It was resolved andboth sides decided to move on
She disputes any and all allegations regarding a hostile work environment It wassimply Kelly doing her job
The separation agreement and release dated Oct 20 stipulates Brazelton be placed ona paid leave of absence from Sept 23 to April 15 at which time she would irrevocablyresign
School board President Colleen Kurth said it was much easier to go with a separationagreement than pay more legal fees
She compared paying Brazelton to paying a teacher out sick while a substitute fills in
The job just has to go on Kurth said
Interim Business Administrator Valerie Carmody who retired from the same post in EastGreenwich last year was hired Dec 1 at $60 per hour 24 hours maximum per weekHer contract ends June 30
New Jersey School Boards Association spokesman Mike Yaple said such separationagreements are infrequent
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 26 of 77
No school board willingly enters into an agreement like this he insisted But eventhough its not a popular decision its the lesser of two evils
Residents unhappy about the districts handling of the situation include Dan Conard ajournalism student at Rowan University Conard writes a blog where he discusses schooldistrict and municipal matters To comment on this topic he filed Open Public RecordsAct (OPRA) document requests
I just wanted to get it out there so people know what is going on Conard said
Ward said she has no quarrel with the student but believes Brazeltons case is anunusual circumstance
It (the separation agreement) was the most responsible thing the district could havedone she insisted Was it a bitter pill to swallow It took the board (a while) beforethey felt it was something they could do but it makes the most sense
Ward said the part-time arrangement with Carmody is working out well and that as thedistrict improves efficiency it is unlikely another full-time business administrator will behired particularly when Executive County Superintendent Peggy Nicolosi has advisedagainst it
Among the options being considered are another part-time business administrator or ashared-service agreement with another district
Ward said she would have preferred the money being expended in this case be spent oneducational programs and teachers particularly this year
Although voters passed Runnemedes 2010-11 budget while many others were defeatedlast April the district of 853 students in K-8 lost six staffers and streamlined its gifted-and-talented program after state aid was cut
Ward also defended the decision to keep a maintenance techniciansupervisor positioncreated in 2008 noting it has saved at least $145000 each year
Mark Speck of Voorhees earns $50000 in the post Through June 2010 it was filled byDoug McGarry a former building and grounds supervisor in the Somerdale district Heearned $60000 in Runnemede but had more experience than Speck Ward said
Before Brazelton arrived in Runnemede the business administrator also served asmaintenance supervisor Ward said that actually cost the district more because it had topay outside maintenance workers sometimes for faulty work
Many things had been done to the facilities that were not to the boards satisfactionshe said That first year with our own maintenance person we saved $145000 becausewe hired a person who fixed things
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 27 of 77
Speck works with vendors going over bids and quotes and also does minor repairs thatno longer have to be paid for piecemeal Ward said the position is staying in the 2011-2012 budget adopted preliminarily on Wednesday
Hes the guy whos here at 4 am making sure weve got snow plows when we needthem Ward said Hes dirty and sweaty -- and hes excellent
Ward said the budget sent to the county includes a $78 annual tax increase for theowner of a home assessed at the $97800 borough average but does not cut staff orprograms
Kurth hopes to tweak the budget and lower the tax hike before it is introduced to thepublic on March 23 But she agreed the maintenance supervisor will stay
That was an investment on the part of the school district Kurth said
Reach Barbara S Rothschild at (856) 486-2416 or barothschildcamdengannettcom
--Comments
User Imageamonkeycoulddoit wroteThe mayor cant hear you because she doesnt even know how to turn on a computerNot that it was a requirement that the mayor should know how to use one I think theonly requirement is that they have a pulse And she does but barely372011 12406 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imageamonkeycoulddoit wroteTo sickofpolsnj it does seem that snoopysam has some inside information And whenyou say hows that mayors race looking I hope that you dont mean that someone fromthe disfunctional school board is going to run for mayor or council or some other electedposition considering the mess that they made on the school board372011 11832 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imageamonkeycoulddoit wroteIf the school board president had listened to staff when the hostil work enviroment issuestarted then she might not be in this pickle She should have spent the money on thelegal fees because if everything is true about the hostile enviroment then they wouldhave won the lawsuit hands down and not had to pay out anything and gotten their legalfees back Another example of elected officials not capable of doing the job they are inLets hope that some people come out of the woodwork to run for school board peoplewho care about the kids and the taxpayers372011 11309 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imageamonkeycoulddoit wrote
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 28 of 77
The school boad is not as inept as the mayor and council You dont have to be a collegegraduate or or even be able to read or write to get an elected position in runnemedeThe 2 new council members got elected because the are involved in the union andeveryone who supports the union came out to vote And the new mayor must have a lotof friends But now after the few months they have been in office it is clear to see thatthey are not able to handle the job Mayor14 is right that the people of Runnemedevoted because they thought they would get something in return for their vote but itlooks like they were wrong In the upcoming elections for school board and council votefor the person who will do the best job whether you like them or not Dont just vote forsomeone because you are told to372011 10214 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagethemayor14 wrotei am so glad this article was written and it clearly points out how inept the runnemedeboard of education actually is the board of education is not elected based on businessand education talent the elections are nothing more than a popularity contest i dontknow how other towns operate but runnemede boro is a total joke when it come toelections be it school board or general elections i wish everyone would get their headsout of their A$$ and truly investigate the school board canidates that are running forelection VOTE WITH YOUR HEAD NOT WITH YOUR HEART362011 91350 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagesavetheschools wroteSeveral people are running for the board for four open seats I signed a petition todayfor a new woman running Members are not paid If you live in Runnemede shopstewardyou have until Tuesday to get a petition submitted I asked and found out there is only 5people on average at the BOE meetings every month in Runnemede I hope more peoplestart to go I plan on it myself And we all need to go every month not just when weread negative press about our schools That is the only way we would all stay informedand not rely on the young man submitting OPRA requests Our town has always beenabout the kids and it needs to get back that way362011 80936 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser ImageShopsteward wroteWhy did it take one young man sending in OPRA requests to bring all this to lightWhy are you relying upon him to get to the bottom of it You say The other members(except for the one who was just arrested and resigned) are good people and didnothing wrong to the district and that might be true except for the fact that theyallowed that incredible salary and benefits to be given out and even though all kinds ofrumors were flying around it took an outsider with OPRA requests to bring this ghastlypimple to a head Sounds more like none of them are doing their jobs and should be outof office and off the payroll They should all just resign They arent doing the job thatwas assigned to them362011 32559 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Image
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 29 of 77
Shopsteward wroteA crime was committed here It began with a violation of the Publics trust by the peoplewho allowed this contract to be signed in the first place What a jokeHow many moreof these jobs are hidden in the budgets of our Schools There needs to be a thouroughcleaning of all thses tyeps of employees everywhere At the State County Municipaland Scool board level and the appointed Authorities too Everyone screams about theUnions but whenever you hear of some great big abuse it turns out the person wasnteven in the UnionClean up this mess first Mr Christie before yougo after the little guys It will save us all a lot more money362011 101606 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser ImageShopsteward wroteI still dont get itHow is a part time24 hr a week job worth so much This is aprime example of the waste that is giving the public workers a bad nameThe onlyproblem is it isnt some Union personIts management and its the same all over This isjust the tip of the iceberg they scream about the Unions but the real waste is in jobs likethis oneNo way this job or the thousands of others like it should be paid so well99465 PLUS BENEFITS incrediblethere should be a lawandthe person gets a pension based on that bloated salarytooThere should be other people losing their jobs not for theseperation aggreement but for letting this evenhappen352011 101125 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagethesplits wroteI guess this is Runnemedes version of a shared service352011 73450 PM
User Imagethesplits wroteLooks like its the same old Runnemede and I thought we voted for change Mayor352011 73202 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagesavetheschools wroteFrom what I understand and I live in town the board went into this separationagreement because the BA would have had a potential lawsuit and it would have costthe school district and tax payers a ton of money Much more than they are spendingnow And yes it is one school board member who was apparently corrupt Just one Theyoung man who was mentioned in the article has been OPRA requesting items and willget to the bottom of this situation with the former BA and the certain board memberBut that is just one person The other members (except for the one who was justarrested and resigned) are good people and did nothing wrong to the district Thisformer BA and her friend who was hired as the maint supervisor have been a hot topicfor a few years Ask the employees they were awful and needed to go It is awful thatthis money was not spent on our children It was a trainwreck from the beginning and ifI recall correctly when the hiring took place only one of the members voted no and that
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 30 of 77
was the local high school teacher metioned in another post Runnemede schools arefantastic and maybe the new people running for election will get some answers andmake some changes And maybe the BOE member who was mentioned by employees asbeing the reason why there could be a possible lawsuit should just resign I understandadmin make good money but they also need to be accountable for their actions and ifthe BA made a hostile environment and was supported by one BOE member both shouldbe gonenot just the BA352011 33207 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagecookmom wroteWhere is Gov Christies veto power352011 30321 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagecookmom wroteThis all happened with a local police officer and a FOP member and local high schoolteacher and member of the NJEA on the board The Runnemede Board is looking alotlike the DRPA and was this group picked by the new Mayor352011 30042 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagesickofpolsnj wroteThe real truth is the Board of Education member and Brazelton and the unethicalsituation that THEY created The questionable contracts and underhanded deals There isa certain Board Member that hopes that this ends here well it doesnt There is not aTeacher or employee in Runnemede Schools that would defend Brazelton same goes forSomerdale And many are willing to bring out MANY of the things that Brazelton did todestroy the district The ENTIRE Runnemede School Community is thrilled that Brazeltonis gone Snoopysam is clearly one of two people Kelly or the Board Member shouldwe name names Hows that Mayors race looking352011 114254 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser ImageShopsteward wrote$99465 plus benefits How much does she pay for her share of those benefitsor are they free to her Her replacement only works 24 hours a week are we being toldthat she got that much money for a part time job What is the matter with theidiots that hired her to begin withNo one should get that kind of money for a part timeThat is an awful lot of money for that kind of job We should not be surprised at all Thiskind of thing is everywhere in Camden CountyIts the NORMAL way of doingbusiness352011 113922 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagelookfar111 wroteYep same old story hire someone for $98000 when 10 equally qualified people woulddo it for 60k with a 20 year top out at 75 k Then a sweetheart adios gift And the cherry
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 31 of 77
on top Another tax increase for the people God I hate what the democrat machinehave done to this once great state352011 111649 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser ImageSnoopysam wrotesickofpolsnj you must be on ot those employees that Brazelton held accountable forHER actions You are right there is so much more to this story and when the real truthscome out there will be some emplopyeesadministratorsboard members hanging theirheads in shame Talk about wasting taxpayer dollars take a look at some of the lazyincompetent employees that Brazelton had to deal withand their HUGE mistakes thathad to be corrected which cost the taxpayers thousands upon thousands of dollars352011 94250 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagesickofpolsnj wroteYou are exactly correct A teacher would never get a sweatheart deal like this I wonderwhich Board Member it was that was mentioned in that letter Did you read the blog thatthis all came out on it has way more details than this articlehttpdansviewrunnemedewordpresscom352011 92934 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagesickofpolsnj wroteOnly thing is Runnemede never had these issues Somerdale had the same EXACT issueswith Brazelton Administrators arent allowed to comment however talk to the teachersand employees off record they will tell you all about Kelly352011 92726 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagesickofpolsnj wroteThere is so much more to this story I hope the CP will run a follow up 1 Look into therealtionship and hiring surrounding Doug the maintenance supervisor 2 Check intoBrazeltons past employment Somerdale Schools 3 Brazelton is rumored to be hired atthe completion of the settlement in Deptford 4 Look into unethical practices between aBoard Member and Brazelton 5 And what about the other Board member that wasrecently charged with a serious crime352011 92315 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imageicallbullschit wroteOnce again the government tries to pin their mistakes on an individual when they screwup royally What the paper fails to report is the other side Maybe years and years ofmismanagement and patronage were uncovered and it became a hostile environmentwhen people got called on their actions and the same old routine was stopped Maybethe school board realized it would be cheaper to pay one than to pay many for theirmistakes Maybe the school board was willing to pay in order to keep their dirty littlesecrets covered up Maybe the resident should look deeper into the actions of the schoolboard and the rest of the administration Maybe I am wrong but it seems that the board
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 32 of 77
got called on some issues and now they are attacking one individual to cover theirtracks They seem to be acting like the GREAT WIZARD OF OZ Pay no attention to theidiots behind the curtain we are the all powerful and all knowing school board Pull backthe curtain people because there are people behind there that are faking their waythrough and going to wind up costing the district millions Just saying352011 85642 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagecookmom wroteSchool board President Colleen Kurth said it was much easier to go with a separationagreement than pay more legal fees She compared paying Brazelton to paying ateacher out sick while a substitute fills in The job just has to go on Kurth said I amconfused A teacher out SICK is NOT the same as a HOSTILE work enviorment How cana medical condition be compared to a person being accused of a hostile workenviorment A teacher would be REQUIRED to use their sick days~ since this is beingcompared to an illness ~was Brazelton REQUIRED to give up her sickvacation pay orwas that part of the dealWas she also paid for those days Wouldnt we all love to becollecting a salary from two towns As now she is being paid by Runnemde AND acurrent SCHOOL district where she is currently employed THIS is the waste in ourSchool districts352011 83552 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imageneocon wroteShe is part of the Protected Classes All you need to know is that she is better thanyou so just keep moveing along Nothing to see here352011 81912 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report Abuse
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 33 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 34 of 77
New Jersey Libertarian PartyOpen Government Advocacy Project
John Paff Chairman
PO Box 5424
Somerset NJ 08875-5424
Phone 732-873-1251 - Fax 908-325-0129
Email lpsmcpoboxcom
May 7 2011
Hon Colleen Kurth President and members of the
Runnemede Board of Education
505 W Third Ave
Runnemede NJ 08078 (via e-mail to vcarmodyrunnemedeschoolsorg )
Dear President Kurth and Board members
I write both individually and on behalf the New Jersey Libertarian Partys Open
Government Advocacy Project to comment on 1) the manner in which the Board of Education
goes into nonpublic (ie executive or closed) session and 2) the level of detail contained within
the Boardrsquos executive session minutes
Issue 1 Executive Session resolutions
As you are aware the Senator Byron M Baer Open Public Meetings Act requires public
bodies such as the Runnemede Board of Education to publicly pass a resolution before
excluding the public from a meeting The statute that requires the resolution states
NJSA 104-13mdashClosed meetings resolution to conduct
No public body shall exclude the public from any meeting to discuss any
matter described in subsection 7 b (104-12) until the public body shall
first adopt a resolution at a meeting to which the public shall be admitted
a Stating the general nature of the subject to be discussed and
b Stating as precisely as possible the time when and the circumstances
under which the discussion conducted in closed session of the public body
can be disclosed to the public
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 35 of 77
2
By way of a recent records request I received resolutions which purport to authorize
executive sessions intended to be held by the Board of Education on July 28 2010 (2 sessions)
August 20 2010 February 2 1011 February 23 2011 (2 sessions) and March 2 2011 Those
resolutions which are virtually identical to each other state
Executive Session to discuss student matters personnel contractual and
legal matters [time and a statement as to whether action will be
taken]
[identity of maker of motion etc]
Resolved that pursuant to Section 8 of the Public Meetings Act the public
shall be excluded from that portion of the meeting involving the discussion
of personnel legal and contractual matters Further resolved that
discussion of such subject matters discussed in Executive Session can be
disclosed to public upon official action if any at the conclusion of the
executive session or at a public session at some later date
I dont think that this form of resolution satisfies NJSA 104-13 because it gives the
public no real sense of what is being privately discussed1 To paraphrase the highest court of of
another state a body which only announces ldquolegal mattersrdquo or ldquopersonnel negotiationsrdquo for
going into executive session has said nothing It might has well have stated to the audience
ldquoLadies and gentlemen we are going into executive sessionrdquo and stopped there Hinds County
Board of Supervisors v Common Cause of Mississippi 551 So2d 107 114 (MS 1989)
Of course there can be no dispute that the Board of Education often has legitimate
reasons to meet in nonpublic session Among these reasons is the need to prevent the adverse
parties in litigation or contract negotiations from gaining an unfair advantage and to allow
members of the governing body to debate and deliberate personnel matters without public
scrutiny or participation But the need to discuss matters privately should not prevent the
public from being informed as precisely as possible of the topics that are being privately
discussed
For example suppose that Runnemede Board is being sued by a Mr Jones who was
injured after he slipped and fell on what he claims to be negligently maintained school
property Since the lawsuit is already a public record there is no public purpose served by
vaguely describing a private discussion of it as ldquostudent matters personnel contractual and
legal mattersrdquo Rather the resolution should at the very least describe the private discussion as
1 In January 2007 when I most recently litigated this issue Middlesex County Superior Court Judge Alexander P
Waugh issued a written decision in which he agreed with other court decisions that closed session resolutions
should contain as much information as is consistent with full public knowledge without doing any harm to the
public interest Judge Waughs decision and other case documents are on the Web at
httpogtfarchiveorgOGTFMonroeBOEWebreadypdf
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 36 of 77
3
ldquoDiscussion of slip and fall negligence suit Jones v Runnemede Board Docket No CAM-L-
012345-11rdquo This way the public has a very good sense of what the Boardrsquos private discussion is
about while the ability of the Board to develop its lawsuit strategy is not undermined
Using the same example suppose that Jonesrsquo attorney sent the Boardrsquos attorney an offer
to fully settle the lawsuit upon the Boardrsquos payment of $20000 While the Board would
obviously need to discuss how to respond to the offer in private lest Jones or his attorney
would be in the audience witnessing the discussion there is no reason why the public cannot be
informed in the NJSA 104-13 resolution that the Board will meet in private to discuss ldquoa
settlement offer received from the Plaintiff in the slip and fall negligence suit known as Jones v
Runnemede Board Docket No CAM-L-012345-11 in which the Plaintiff offers to settle the suit
in exchange for the Board paying him $20000rdquo While it may initially seem that this would
provide ldquotoo muchrdquo information to the public this concern disappears once it is realized that
the sole purpose of the exception2 that allows litigation matters to be discussed in private is to
keep the adverse party to the litigation in the dark regarding the Boardrsquos position3 Since in this
example the adverse party (ie Jones) already knows that he offered to settle the lawsuit for
$20000 there is no legitimate reason why the public should not also know of the tendered
settlement offer
As another example suppose that a personnel matter such as whether or not a Mrs
Smith a public works employee should be disciplined because of repeatedly arriving late to
work is to be discussed in closed session In such a case the amount of detail set forth in the
NJSA 104-13 resolution should correspond to the amount of detail that the Board and its
attorney predict will be publicly disclosed in the closed meetingrsquos minutes when those minutes
are made public
The standard that the Board is to use when determining how much information about a
personnel matter is to be disclosed in the closed sessionrsquos minutes is set forth in South Jersey
Publishing Company Inc v New Jersey Expressway Authority 124 NJ 478 (1991) That
standard is that a) the public needs information if it is properly fulfill its role of evaluating the
wisdom of governmental action or a decision not to act b) that New Jerseys strong public
policy requires that a public bodyrsquos actions and decisions to not act be disclosed in the bodys
closed meeting minutes along with sufficient facts and information to permit the public to
understand and appraise the reasonableness of the bodys determination and c) to the extent a
cognizable privacy interest may be compromised by the required disclosure the extent of
disclosure may be modified through redactions of the minutes provided the public interest in
disclosure is not subverted
2 NJSA104-12(b)(7) is to prevent adverse parties to litigation and contracts from learning the details of the
public bodyrsquos negotiation tactics and litigation strategy3 See the discussion in Paff v Washington Township Docket No MER-L-2205-07 and Nevin v Asbury Park City
Board 2005 WL 2847974 (App Div November 1 2005) which are on-line at
httpogtfarchiveorgOGTFWashingtonpdf (Nevin begins at page 44 of the PDF file at the link)
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 37 of 77
4
Thus regardless of whether the Board disciplines Ms Smith or chooses to not impose
discipline due to her lateness the outcome should be recorded in the closed meeting minutes
The question of whether that entry in the minutes should be redacted before the minutes are
made public requires a balancing of Ms Smithrsquos interest in keeping the disciplinary matter
private against the publicrsquos interest in effectively monitoring the Board If the Board with
counselrsquos advice determines after balancing these interests that the outcome will be published
unredacted in the closed sessionrsquos minutes (ie if the minutes will disclose to the public eg that
ldquoMs Smith was suspended for three days on account of her habitual latenessrdquo) then the exact
nature of the matter (ie that ldquothe Board will discuss disciplining Ms Smith for excessive
latenessrdquo) should be set forth in the closed meetingrsquos NJSA 104-13 resolution Inversely if the
Board determines that Ms Smithrsquos privacy interest exceeds the publicrsquos right to know then less
information (eg ldquothe Board will discuss disciplining an employee for excessive latenessrdquo)
should be set forth in the closed meetingrsquos NJSA 104-13 resolution
In other words if the officer or employee being discussed doesnt have a privacy interest
sufficient to withstand a citizens request for the executive session minutes why should not the
public know the topic of the executive session prior to it occurring
Irsquove attached as Exhibit pages 1 -3 is a model resolution that I would like the Board to
use in the future
Issue 2 Executive Session minutes
Attached as Exhibit Page 4 as an example are the Boardrsquos July 28 2010 executive session
minutes It is troubling that a meeting that lasted over an hour is being summed up in a single
sentence ldquoMr Phil Stern addressed the Board of Education about personnel issuesrdquo These
minutes are not ldquoreasonably comprehensiblerdquo as required by NJSA 104-14
The purpose of closed meeting minutes is not merely to inform the public of whatoccurred during the private session but also to create a record for the Board membersthemselves A Board member who is newly elected in 2012 should be able by referringsolely to the minutes to figure out what issues the Board addressed during any previouslyheld closed meeting This hypothetical Board member after reading the July 28 2010closed minutes could not possibly figure out which employees or officials Mr Stern wastalking about
Better practice would be to record closed minutes that are much morecomprehensive but to redact that material that must be shielded from public view Forexample the minutes could have said
Mr Stern addressed the Board of Education about the habitualtardiness of 2nd grade teacher Mary Doe and her propensity to eatlibrary paste and scream hysterically during fire drills Herecommended that she be sent for psychiatric evaluation
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 38 of 77
5
Of course if a member of the public requested these hypothetical minutes the Boardmay need to redact them in order to protect privacy interests The point however is thatregardless of whether unredacted closed meeting minutes are ever released to the publicthey should contain sufficient details so that the Board members themselves can monthsor years later know what was discussed
Attached as Exhibit pages 5 ndash 9 is an order recently entered in Schmidt et al v City of
Gloucester City et al Docket No CAM-L-1287-11 As you can see paraA(3) supports my position
that the Boardrsquos minutes are not ldquoreasonably comprehensiblerdquo as required by law
Conclusion
Since some public bodies do not take my requests for Meetings Act compliance seriously
I regret having to inform the Board that I will sue for declaratory and injunctive relief in
accordance with NJSA 104-16 unless I receive assurances from the Boardmdashwithin a few days
after its May 10 2011 meetingmdashthat it will work in good faith to improve the amount of
information in both its closed session resolutions and minutes If the Boardrsquos agenda is already
set for the May 10 2011 meeting please at least acknowledge this letter and let me know the
date of the meeting at which it will be considered
Thank you very much for your attention to this matter I look forward to hearing from
you
Sincerely
John Paff
cc Philip E Stern Esq w enc (via e-mail to psternasgllawcom )
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 39 of 77
RUNNEMEDE BOARD OF EDUCATIONRESOLUTION NO ___________
AUTHORIZING EXECUTIVE SESSION
WHEREAS while the Sen Byron M Baer Open Public Meetings Act (NJSA 104-6 et seq) requires allmeetings of the Runnemede Board of Education to be held in public NJSA 104-12(b) sets forth nine (9)types of matters that may lawfully be discussed in ldquoExecutive Sessionrdquo ie without the public beingpermitted to attend and
WHEREAS the Runnemede Board of Education has determined that _____ (insert number) issues arepermitted by NJSA 104-12(b) to be discussed without the public in attendance shall be discussed duringan Executive Session to be held on _________________________ 20____ at _______ PM and
WHEREAS the nine (9) exceptions to public meetings set forth in NJSA 104-12(b) are listed below andnext to each exception is a box within which the number of issues to be privately discussed that fall withinthat exception shall be written and after each exception is a space where additional information that willdisclose as much information about the discussion as possible without undermining the purpose of theexception shall be written
ldquo(1) Any matter which by express provision of Federal law State statute or rule of courtshall be rendered confidential or excluded from public discussionrdquo The legal citation to theprovision(s) at issue is__________________________ and the nature of the matter described asspecifically as possible without undermining the need for confidentiality is _______________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(2) Any matter in which the release of information would impair a right to receive fundsfrom the federal governmentrdquo The nature of the matter described as specifically as possiblewithout undermining the need for confidentiality is _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(3) Any material the disclosure of which constitutes an unwarranted invasion of individualprivacy such as any records data reports recommendations or other personal material ofany educational training social service medical health custodial child protectionrehabilitation legal defense welfare housing relocation insurance and similar program orinstitution operated by a public body pertaining to any specific individual admitted to orserved by such institution or program including but not limited to information relative tothe individuals personal and family circumstances and any material pertaining toadmission discharge treatment progress or condition of any individual unless theindividual concerned (or in the case of a minor or incompetent his guardian) shall requestin writing that the same be disclosed publiclyrdquo The nature of the matter described asspecifically as possible without undermining the need for confidentiality is______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(4) Any collective bargaining agreement or the terms and conditions of which are proposedfor inclusion in any collective bargaining agreement including the negotiation of terms andconditions with employees or representatives of employees of the public bodyrdquo The collectivebargaining contract(s) discussed are between the Board and ____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Exhibit Page 1Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 40 of 77
ldquo(5) Any matter involving the purchase lease or acquisition of real property with publicfunds the setting of bank rates or investment of public funds where it could adversely affectthe public interest if discussion of such matters were disclosedrdquo The nature of the matterdescribed as specifically as possible without undermining the need for confidentiality is____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(6) Any tactics and techniques utilized in protecting the safety and property of the publicprovided that their disclosure could impair such protection Any investigations of violationsor possible violations of the lawrdquo The nature of the matter described as specifically as possiblewithout undermining the need for confidentiality is ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(7) Any pending or anticipated litigation or contract negotiation in which the public body isor may become a party Any matters falling within the attorney-client privilege to the extentthat confidentiality is required in order for the attorney to exercise his ethicalduties as a lawyerrdquo The parties to and docket numbers of each item of litigation andor theparties to each contract discussed are __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ andnature of the discussion described as specifically as possible without undermining the need forconfidentiality is ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(8) Any matter involving the employment appointment termination of employment termsand conditions of employment evaluation of the performance promotion or disciplining ofany specific prospective public officer or employee or current public officer or employeeemployed or appointed by the public body unless all individual employees or appointees whoserights could be adversely affected request in writing that such matter or matters be discussed ata public meetingrdquo Subject to the balancing of the publicrsquos interest and the employeersquos privacyrights under South Jersey Publishing Co v New Jersey Expressway Authority 124 NJ 478 theemployee(s) and nature of the discussion described as specifically as possible withoutundermining the need for confidentiality are _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(9) Any deliberation of a public body occurring after a public hearing that may result in theimposition of a specific civil penalty upon the responding party or the suspension or loss of alicense or permit belonging to the responding party as a result of an act of omission forwhich the responding party bears responsibilityrdquo The nature of the matter described asspecifically as possible without undermining the need for confidentiality is______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
WHEREAS the length of the Executive Session is estimated to be ________ minutes after which the publicmeeting of the Board shall (circle one) reconvene and immediately adjourn or reconvene and proceed withbusiness
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Runnemede Board of Education will go into ExecutiveSession for only the above stated reasons
Exhibit Page 2Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 41 of 77
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board hereby declares that its discussion of the aforementionedsubject(s) will be made public at a time when the publicrsquos interest in disclosure is greater than any privacy orgovernmental interest being protected from disclosure For each of the above items the estimated date bywhich such disclosure can be made andor the occurrence that needs to take place before disclosure can bemade are listed below (attach separate sheet if necessary)
Subject of Discussion Estimated Date Necessary Occurrence
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Clerk at the present public meeting shall read aloud enough ofthis resolution so that members of the public in attendance can understand as precisely as possible thenature of the matters that will privately discussed
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Clerk on the next business day following this meeting shallfurnish a copy of this resolution to any member of the public who requests one at the fees allowed byNJSA 471A-1 et seq
_________________________________Board President
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS ATRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTIONAPPROVED BY THE RUNNEMEDE BOARD OF EDUCATION AT ITSPUBLIC MEETING HELD ON ______________________20___
_______________________________________Board Secretary
Exhibit Page 3Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 42 of 77
Exhibit Page 4Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 43 of 77
Exhibit Page 5Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 44 of 77
Exhibit Page 6Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 45 of 77
Exhibit Page 7Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 46 of 77
Exhibit Page 8Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 47 of 77
Exhibit Page 9Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 48 of 77
Subject Records RequestFrom John Paff ltpaffpoboxcomgtDate Sat 07 May 2011 161444 -0400To vcarmodyrunnemedeschoolsorgCC psternasgllawcom
Ms Carmody
Please accept this e-mail as my request for government records inaccordance with the Open Public Records Act (OPRA) and the commonlaw right of access Please respond and send all responsivedocuments to me via e-mail at paffpoboxcom If e-mail is notpossible please fax responses and responsive records to me at908-325-0129 Also I would appreciate it if you wouldacknowledge your receipt of this e-mail
Background
In response to a records request I recently received redactedexecutive session minutes for the following dates July 28 2010(first session) August 26 2010 February 2 2011 February 232011 (two sessions) and March 2 2011 Although Mr Stern providedme with a sheet entitled Documents Exempt From OPRA request thatpurports to explain these redactions I am still unclear as to whythe matter was redacted and whether it was lawfully redacted
First I dont understand references such as NJSA 471A-11(12)(c) The version of OPRA that I have (plus every other oneIve seen) does not have internal numbers within NJSA471A-11 Am I correct that NJSA 471A-11(12)(c) isintended to refer to the exemption for records in connection withcollective negotiations including documents and statements ofstrategy or negotiating position and that NJSA 471A-11(7)is intended to refer to any record within the attorney-clientprivilege This paragraph shall not be construed as exempting fromaccess attorney or consultant bills or invoices except that suchbills or invoices may be redacted to remove any informationprotected by the attorney-client privilege Please advise
Second even if I correctly corresponded the claimed exemptions tothe OPRA statute I have no way of knowing whether the mattersredacted are actually exempt from access When a custodiansuppresses any portion of any requested record NJSA471A-5(g) requires him or her to state the ldquospecific basisrdquo foreach suppressed element Beyond stating the ldquospecific basisrdquo foreach suppressed element he or she is required to ldquoproduce
Records Request
1 of 2 622011 810 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 49 of 77
specific reliable evidence sufficient to meet a statutorilyrecognized basis for confidentialityrdquo Courier News v HunterdonCounty Prosecutorrsquos Office 358 NJ Super 373 382-83 (App Div2003) Further he or she must explain each suppression in amanner that ldquowill enable other parties to assess the applicabilityof the privilege or protectionrdquo Paff v New Jersey Department ofLabor Board of Review 379 NJ Super 346 354-55 (2005)(quoting R 410-2(e))
Records requested
Runnemede Board of Education minutes for the following dates July28 2010 (728 pm session only) August 26 2010 February 22011 February 23 2011 (both sessions) and March 2 2011 Iwould like these minutes redacted as narrowly as possible if atall For each redaction I request a written explanation thatmeets the requirements of the case law cited above
cc Phil Stern
Records Request
2 of 2 622011 810 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 50 of 77
Subject Re Fwd Runnemede Board of Education Open PublicMeetings ActFrom John Paff ltpaffpoboxcomgtDate Mon 09 May 2011 134726 -0400To Nancy Ward ltnwardrunnemedeschoolsorggt
Thank you
On 592011 116 PM Nancy Ward wrote
Mr Paff
The Board has named me Custodian of Records Please direct allfuturecommunication to me The May 10 2011 meeting is theRe-organization ofthe Runnemede Board of Education The agenda is set and is verycomprehensive I intend to defer the letter and any discussionregardingits content to the next regular meeting the date of which willbe setat the re-organization tomorrow night In keeping with thedistrictsmeeting pattern that will be May 25 2011
Nancy BWard EdD
Superintendent of Schools
-----Original Message-----From John PaffSent 572011 42300 PMTo nwardrunnemedeschoolsorgCc vcarmodyrunnemedeschoolsorg psternasgllawcomSubject Fwd Runnemede Board of Education Open Public MeetingsAct
Here is another e-mail in case my original one should have beendirected to Ms Ward and not Ms Carmody
JP
-------- Original Message --------Subject Runnemede Board of Education Open Public Meetings ActDate Sat 07 May 2011 152319 -0400From John Paff
Re Fwd Runnemede Board of Education Open Public Meetings Act
1 of 2 622011 811 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 51 of 77
Reply-To paffpoboxcomTo vcarmodyrunnemedeschoolsorg psternasgllawcom
Ms Carmody and Mr Stern
Attached is a letter that I would like the Board to consider atits May10 2011 meeting Would you please a) acknowledge receipt of theletterand b) distribute it to all the Board members
Note that the last paragraph of the letter indicates that I willfilesuit against the Board if the issues in the letter arentaddressedSo if the Boards agenda for the May 10th meeting is so tightthat myletter cannot be accommodated please advise me of such andprovide ameeting date where my letter will be addressed so that I knowthat I amnot being ignored
Thank you
John Paff ChairmanNew Jersey Libertarian PartysOpen Government Advocacy Project
Re Fwd Runnemede Board of Education Open Public Meetings Act
2 of 2 622011 811 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 52 of 77
Subject OPRA RequestFrom Philip Stern ltpsternasgllawcomgtDate Fri 20 May 2011 161015 -0500To paffpoboxcom ltpaffpoboxcomgtCC Nancy Ward ltnwardrunnemedeschoolsorggt
Mr Paff please find attached to this email a response to your request forbusiness records Please note that in providing you with the attachedrecords the Runnemede Borough Board of Education waives no rightsregarding the attorney-client privilege Do not hesitate to call me if youhave any questions Phil Stern
Philip E SternAdams Stern Gutierrez amp Lattiboudere LLCThe Legal Center1037 Raymond Blvd Suite 710Newark New Jersey 07102(973) 735-2742 (office telephone)(201) 914-2415 (cellular telephone)(973) 735-2743 (office telefax)
May 20 Paff responsepdf
Content-DescriptionMay 20 Paffresponsepdf
Content-Type applicationpdf
Content-Encoding base64
OPRA Request
1 of 1 622011 815 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 53 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 54 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 55 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 56 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 57 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 58 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 59 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 60 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 61 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 62 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 63 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 64 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 65 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 66 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 67 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 68 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 69 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 70 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 71 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 72 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 73 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 74 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 75 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 76 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 77 of 77
- Civil Complaint
- Exhibits
-
Idled officials payout riles Runnemede
By BARBARA S ROTHSCHILD bull Courier-Post Staff bull March 5 2011
RUNNEMEDE mdash Although the school district is paying Business Administrator Kelly PetersBrazelton her full salary to stay home while paying for an interim employee RunnemedeSuperintendent Nancy Ward said it could have cost more not to have a separationagreement
New Jersey is a very litigious state she said In order to avoid litigation which neveris a good thing a separation agreement gives you a certain outcome
Brazelton a Deptford resident and the former business administrator for the SomerdalePublic School District began working for Runnemede schools in August 2008 Her mostrecent contract for July 1 2010 through June 30 is for $99465 plus benefits
But the relationship soured and the district would not comment on specifics citingconfidentiality
A letter from staff members written to Ward and the school board in July 2010 gaveexamples of a hostile work environment that they said was created by the businessadministrator
Brazelton could not be reached Her attorney Joseph Betley of Mount Laurel said hisclient signed the separation agreement in good faith
There was a disagreement between the board and Kelly he said It was resolved andboth sides decided to move on
She disputes any and all allegations regarding a hostile work environment It wassimply Kelly doing her job
The separation agreement and release dated Oct 20 stipulates Brazelton be placed ona paid leave of absence from Sept 23 to April 15 at which time she would irrevocablyresign
School board President Colleen Kurth said it was much easier to go with a separationagreement than pay more legal fees
She compared paying Brazelton to paying a teacher out sick while a substitute fills in
The job just has to go on Kurth said
Interim Business Administrator Valerie Carmody who retired from the same post in EastGreenwich last year was hired Dec 1 at $60 per hour 24 hours maximum per weekHer contract ends June 30
New Jersey School Boards Association spokesman Mike Yaple said such separationagreements are infrequent
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 26 of 77
No school board willingly enters into an agreement like this he insisted But eventhough its not a popular decision its the lesser of two evils
Residents unhappy about the districts handling of the situation include Dan Conard ajournalism student at Rowan University Conard writes a blog where he discusses schooldistrict and municipal matters To comment on this topic he filed Open Public RecordsAct (OPRA) document requests
I just wanted to get it out there so people know what is going on Conard said
Ward said she has no quarrel with the student but believes Brazeltons case is anunusual circumstance
It (the separation agreement) was the most responsible thing the district could havedone she insisted Was it a bitter pill to swallow It took the board (a while) beforethey felt it was something they could do but it makes the most sense
Ward said the part-time arrangement with Carmody is working out well and that as thedistrict improves efficiency it is unlikely another full-time business administrator will behired particularly when Executive County Superintendent Peggy Nicolosi has advisedagainst it
Among the options being considered are another part-time business administrator or ashared-service agreement with another district
Ward said she would have preferred the money being expended in this case be spent oneducational programs and teachers particularly this year
Although voters passed Runnemedes 2010-11 budget while many others were defeatedlast April the district of 853 students in K-8 lost six staffers and streamlined its gifted-and-talented program after state aid was cut
Ward also defended the decision to keep a maintenance techniciansupervisor positioncreated in 2008 noting it has saved at least $145000 each year
Mark Speck of Voorhees earns $50000 in the post Through June 2010 it was filled byDoug McGarry a former building and grounds supervisor in the Somerdale district Heearned $60000 in Runnemede but had more experience than Speck Ward said
Before Brazelton arrived in Runnemede the business administrator also served asmaintenance supervisor Ward said that actually cost the district more because it had topay outside maintenance workers sometimes for faulty work
Many things had been done to the facilities that were not to the boards satisfactionshe said That first year with our own maintenance person we saved $145000 becausewe hired a person who fixed things
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 27 of 77
Speck works with vendors going over bids and quotes and also does minor repairs thatno longer have to be paid for piecemeal Ward said the position is staying in the 2011-2012 budget adopted preliminarily on Wednesday
Hes the guy whos here at 4 am making sure weve got snow plows when we needthem Ward said Hes dirty and sweaty -- and hes excellent
Ward said the budget sent to the county includes a $78 annual tax increase for theowner of a home assessed at the $97800 borough average but does not cut staff orprograms
Kurth hopes to tweak the budget and lower the tax hike before it is introduced to thepublic on March 23 But she agreed the maintenance supervisor will stay
That was an investment on the part of the school district Kurth said
Reach Barbara S Rothschild at (856) 486-2416 or barothschildcamdengannettcom
--Comments
User Imageamonkeycoulddoit wroteThe mayor cant hear you because she doesnt even know how to turn on a computerNot that it was a requirement that the mayor should know how to use one I think theonly requirement is that they have a pulse And she does but barely372011 12406 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imageamonkeycoulddoit wroteTo sickofpolsnj it does seem that snoopysam has some inside information And whenyou say hows that mayors race looking I hope that you dont mean that someone fromthe disfunctional school board is going to run for mayor or council or some other electedposition considering the mess that they made on the school board372011 11832 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imageamonkeycoulddoit wroteIf the school board president had listened to staff when the hostil work enviroment issuestarted then she might not be in this pickle She should have spent the money on thelegal fees because if everything is true about the hostile enviroment then they wouldhave won the lawsuit hands down and not had to pay out anything and gotten their legalfees back Another example of elected officials not capable of doing the job they are inLets hope that some people come out of the woodwork to run for school board peoplewho care about the kids and the taxpayers372011 11309 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imageamonkeycoulddoit wrote
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 28 of 77
The school boad is not as inept as the mayor and council You dont have to be a collegegraduate or or even be able to read or write to get an elected position in runnemedeThe 2 new council members got elected because the are involved in the union andeveryone who supports the union came out to vote And the new mayor must have a lotof friends But now after the few months they have been in office it is clear to see thatthey are not able to handle the job Mayor14 is right that the people of Runnemedevoted because they thought they would get something in return for their vote but itlooks like they were wrong In the upcoming elections for school board and council votefor the person who will do the best job whether you like them or not Dont just vote forsomeone because you are told to372011 10214 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagethemayor14 wrotei am so glad this article was written and it clearly points out how inept the runnemedeboard of education actually is the board of education is not elected based on businessand education talent the elections are nothing more than a popularity contest i dontknow how other towns operate but runnemede boro is a total joke when it come toelections be it school board or general elections i wish everyone would get their headsout of their A$$ and truly investigate the school board canidates that are running forelection VOTE WITH YOUR HEAD NOT WITH YOUR HEART362011 91350 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagesavetheschools wroteSeveral people are running for the board for four open seats I signed a petition todayfor a new woman running Members are not paid If you live in Runnemede shopstewardyou have until Tuesday to get a petition submitted I asked and found out there is only 5people on average at the BOE meetings every month in Runnemede I hope more peoplestart to go I plan on it myself And we all need to go every month not just when weread negative press about our schools That is the only way we would all stay informedand not rely on the young man submitting OPRA requests Our town has always beenabout the kids and it needs to get back that way362011 80936 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser ImageShopsteward wroteWhy did it take one young man sending in OPRA requests to bring all this to lightWhy are you relying upon him to get to the bottom of it You say The other members(except for the one who was just arrested and resigned) are good people and didnothing wrong to the district and that might be true except for the fact that theyallowed that incredible salary and benefits to be given out and even though all kinds ofrumors were flying around it took an outsider with OPRA requests to bring this ghastlypimple to a head Sounds more like none of them are doing their jobs and should be outof office and off the payroll They should all just resign They arent doing the job thatwas assigned to them362011 32559 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Image
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 29 of 77
Shopsteward wroteA crime was committed here It began with a violation of the Publics trust by the peoplewho allowed this contract to be signed in the first place What a jokeHow many moreof these jobs are hidden in the budgets of our Schools There needs to be a thouroughcleaning of all thses tyeps of employees everywhere At the State County Municipaland Scool board level and the appointed Authorities too Everyone screams about theUnions but whenever you hear of some great big abuse it turns out the person wasnteven in the UnionClean up this mess first Mr Christie before yougo after the little guys It will save us all a lot more money362011 101606 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser ImageShopsteward wroteI still dont get itHow is a part time24 hr a week job worth so much This is aprime example of the waste that is giving the public workers a bad nameThe onlyproblem is it isnt some Union personIts management and its the same all over This isjust the tip of the iceberg they scream about the Unions but the real waste is in jobs likethis oneNo way this job or the thousands of others like it should be paid so well99465 PLUS BENEFITS incrediblethere should be a lawandthe person gets a pension based on that bloated salarytooThere should be other people losing their jobs not for theseperation aggreement but for letting this evenhappen352011 101125 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagethesplits wroteI guess this is Runnemedes version of a shared service352011 73450 PM
User Imagethesplits wroteLooks like its the same old Runnemede and I thought we voted for change Mayor352011 73202 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagesavetheschools wroteFrom what I understand and I live in town the board went into this separationagreement because the BA would have had a potential lawsuit and it would have costthe school district and tax payers a ton of money Much more than they are spendingnow And yes it is one school board member who was apparently corrupt Just one Theyoung man who was mentioned in the article has been OPRA requesting items and willget to the bottom of this situation with the former BA and the certain board memberBut that is just one person The other members (except for the one who was justarrested and resigned) are good people and did nothing wrong to the district Thisformer BA and her friend who was hired as the maint supervisor have been a hot topicfor a few years Ask the employees they were awful and needed to go It is awful thatthis money was not spent on our children It was a trainwreck from the beginning and ifI recall correctly when the hiring took place only one of the members voted no and that
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 30 of 77
was the local high school teacher metioned in another post Runnemede schools arefantastic and maybe the new people running for election will get some answers andmake some changes And maybe the BOE member who was mentioned by employees asbeing the reason why there could be a possible lawsuit should just resign I understandadmin make good money but they also need to be accountable for their actions and ifthe BA made a hostile environment and was supported by one BOE member both shouldbe gonenot just the BA352011 33207 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagecookmom wroteWhere is Gov Christies veto power352011 30321 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagecookmom wroteThis all happened with a local police officer and a FOP member and local high schoolteacher and member of the NJEA on the board The Runnemede Board is looking alotlike the DRPA and was this group picked by the new Mayor352011 30042 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagesickofpolsnj wroteThe real truth is the Board of Education member and Brazelton and the unethicalsituation that THEY created The questionable contracts and underhanded deals There isa certain Board Member that hopes that this ends here well it doesnt There is not aTeacher or employee in Runnemede Schools that would defend Brazelton same goes forSomerdale And many are willing to bring out MANY of the things that Brazelton did todestroy the district The ENTIRE Runnemede School Community is thrilled that Brazeltonis gone Snoopysam is clearly one of two people Kelly or the Board Member shouldwe name names Hows that Mayors race looking352011 114254 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser ImageShopsteward wrote$99465 plus benefits How much does she pay for her share of those benefitsor are they free to her Her replacement only works 24 hours a week are we being toldthat she got that much money for a part time job What is the matter with theidiots that hired her to begin withNo one should get that kind of money for a part timeThat is an awful lot of money for that kind of job We should not be surprised at all Thiskind of thing is everywhere in Camden CountyIts the NORMAL way of doingbusiness352011 113922 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagelookfar111 wroteYep same old story hire someone for $98000 when 10 equally qualified people woulddo it for 60k with a 20 year top out at 75 k Then a sweetheart adios gift And the cherry
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 31 of 77
on top Another tax increase for the people God I hate what the democrat machinehave done to this once great state352011 111649 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser ImageSnoopysam wrotesickofpolsnj you must be on ot those employees that Brazelton held accountable forHER actions You are right there is so much more to this story and when the real truthscome out there will be some emplopyeesadministratorsboard members hanging theirheads in shame Talk about wasting taxpayer dollars take a look at some of the lazyincompetent employees that Brazelton had to deal withand their HUGE mistakes thathad to be corrected which cost the taxpayers thousands upon thousands of dollars352011 94250 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagesickofpolsnj wroteYou are exactly correct A teacher would never get a sweatheart deal like this I wonderwhich Board Member it was that was mentioned in that letter Did you read the blog thatthis all came out on it has way more details than this articlehttpdansviewrunnemedewordpresscom352011 92934 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagesickofpolsnj wroteOnly thing is Runnemede never had these issues Somerdale had the same EXACT issueswith Brazelton Administrators arent allowed to comment however talk to the teachersand employees off record they will tell you all about Kelly352011 92726 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagesickofpolsnj wroteThere is so much more to this story I hope the CP will run a follow up 1 Look into therealtionship and hiring surrounding Doug the maintenance supervisor 2 Check intoBrazeltons past employment Somerdale Schools 3 Brazelton is rumored to be hired atthe completion of the settlement in Deptford 4 Look into unethical practices between aBoard Member and Brazelton 5 And what about the other Board member that wasrecently charged with a serious crime352011 92315 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imageicallbullschit wroteOnce again the government tries to pin their mistakes on an individual when they screwup royally What the paper fails to report is the other side Maybe years and years ofmismanagement and patronage were uncovered and it became a hostile environmentwhen people got called on their actions and the same old routine was stopped Maybethe school board realized it would be cheaper to pay one than to pay many for theirmistakes Maybe the school board was willing to pay in order to keep their dirty littlesecrets covered up Maybe the resident should look deeper into the actions of the schoolboard and the rest of the administration Maybe I am wrong but it seems that the board
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 32 of 77
got called on some issues and now they are attacking one individual to cover theirtracks They seem to be acting like the GREAT WIZARD OF OZ Pay no attention to theidiots behind the curtain we are the all powerful and all knowing school board Pull backthe curtain people because there are people behind there that are faking their waythrough and going to wind up costing the district millions Just saying352011 85642 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagecookmom wroteSchool board President Colleen Kurth said it was much easier to go with a separationagreement than pay more legal fees She compared paying Brazelton to paying ateacher out sick while a substitute fills in The job just has to go on Kurth said I amconfused A teacher out SICK is NOT the same as a HOSTILE work enviorment How cana medical condition be compared to a person being accused of a hostile workenviorment A teacher would be REQUIRED to use their sick days~ since this is beingcompared to an illness ~was Brazelton REQUIRED to give up her sickvacation pay orwas that part of the dealWas she also paid for those days Wouldnt we all love to becollecting a salary from two towns As now she is being paid by Runnemde AND acurrent SCHOOL district where she is currently employed THIS is the waste in ourSchool districts352011 83552 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imageneocon wroteShe is part of the Protected Classes All you need to know is that she is better thanyou so just keep moveing along Nothing to see here352011 81912 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report Abuse
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 33 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 34 of 77
New Jersey Libertarian PartyOpen Government Advocacy Project
John Paff Chairman
PO Box 5424
Somerset NJ 08875-5424
Phone 732-873-1251 - Fax 908-325-0129
Email lpsmcpoboxcom
May 7 2011
Hon Colleen Kurth President and members of the
Runnemede Board of Education
505 W Third Ave
Runnemede NJ 08078 (via e-mail to vcarmodyrunnemedeschoolsorg )
Dear President Kurth and Board members
I write both individually and on behalf the New Jersey Libertarian Partys Open
Government Advocacy Project to comment on 1) the manner in which the Board of Education
goes into nonpublic (ie executive or closed) session and 2) the level of detail contained within
the Boardrsquos executive session minutes
Issue 1 Executive Session resolutions
As you are aware the Senator Byron M Baer Open Public Meetings Act requires public
bodies such as the Runnemede Board of Education to publicly pass a resolution before
excluding the public from a meeting The statute that requires the resolution states
NJSA 104-13mdashClosed meetings resolution to conduct
No public body shall exclude the public from any meeting to discuss any
matter described in subsection 7 b (104-12) until the public body shall
first adopt a resolution at a meeting to which the public shall be admitted
a Stating the general nature of the subject to be discussed and
b Stating as precisely as possible the time when and the circumstances
under which the discussion conducted in closed session of the public body
can be disclosed to the public
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 35 of 77
2
By way of a recent records request I received resolutions which purport to authorize
executive sessions intended to be held by the Board of Education on July 28 2010 (2 sessions)
August 20 2010 February 2 1011 February 23 2011 (2 sessions) and March 2 2011 Those
resolutions which are virtually identical to each other state
Executive Session to discuss student matters personnel contractual and
legal matters [time and a statement as to whether action will be
taken]
[identity of maker of motion etc]
Resolved that pursuant to Section 8 of the Public Meetings Act the public
shall be excluded from that portion of the meeting involving the discussion
of personnel legal and contractual matters Further resolved that
discussion of such subject matters discussed in Executive Session can be
disclosed to public upon official action if any at the conclusion of the
executive session or at a public session at some later date
I dont think that this form of resolution satisfies NJSA 104-13 because it gives the
public no real sense of what is being privately discussed1 To paraphrase the highest court of of
another state a body which only announces ldquolegal mattersrdquo or ldquopersonnel negotiationsrdquo for
going into executive session has said nothing It might has well have stated to the audience
ldquoLadies and gentlemen we are going into executive sessionrdquo and stopped there Hinds County
Board of Supervisors v Common Cause of Mississippi 551 So2d 107 114 (MS 1989)
Of course there can be no dispute that the Board of Education often has legitimate
reasons to meet in nonpublic session Among these reasons is the need to prevent the adverse
parties in litigation or contract negotiations from gaining an unfair advantage and to allow
members of the governing body to debate and deliberate personnel matters without public
scrutiny or participation But the need to discuss matters privately should not prevent the
public from being informed as precisely as possible of the topics that are being privately
discussed
For example suppose that Runnemede Board is being sued by a Mr Jones who was
injured after he slipped and fell on what he claims to be negligently maintained school
property Since the lawsuit is already a public record there is no public purpose served by
vaguely describing a private discussion of it as ldquostudent matters personnel contractual and
legal mattersrdquo Rather the resolution should at the very least describe the private discussion as
1 In January 2007 when I most recently litigated this issue Middlesex County Superior Court Judge Alexander P
Waugh issued a written decision in which he agreed with other court decisions that closed session resolutions
should contain as much information as is consistent with full public knowledge without doing any harm to the
public interest Judge Waughs decision and other case documents are on the Web at
httpogtfarchiveorgOGTFMonroeBOEWebreadypdf
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 36 of 77
3
ldquoDiscussion of slip and fall negligence suit Jones v Runnemede Board Docket No CAM-L-
012345-11rdquo This way the public has a very good sense of what the Boardrsquos private discussion is
about while the ability of the Board to develop its lawsuit strategy is not undermined
Using the same example suppose that Jonesrsquo attorney sent the Boardrsquos attorney an offer
to fully settle the lawsuit upon the Boardrsquos payment of $20000 While the Board would
obviously need to discuss how to respond to the offer in private lest Jones or his attorney
would be in the audience witnessing the discussion there is no reason why the public cannot be
informed in the NJSA 104-13 resolution that the Board will meet in private to discuss ldquoa
settlement offer received from the Plaintiff in the slip and fall negligence suit known as Jones v
Runnemede Board Docket No CAM-L-012345-11 in which the Plaintiff offers to settle the suit
in exchange for the Board paying him $20000rdquo While it may initially seem that this would
provide ldquotoo muchrdquo information to the public this concern disappears once it is realized that
the sole purpose of the exception2 that allows litigation matters to be discussed in private is to
keep the adverse party to the litigation in the dark regarding the Boardrsquos position3 Since in this
example the adverse party (ie Jones) already knows that he offered to settle the lawsuit for
$20000 there is no legitimate reason why the public should not also know of the tendered
settlement offer
As another example suppose that a personnel matter such as whether or not a Mrs
Smith a public works employee should be disciplined because of repeatedly arriving late to
work is to be discussed in closed session In such a case the amount of detail set forth in the
NJSA 104-13 resolution should correspond to the amount of detail that the Board and its
attorney predict will be publicly disclosed in the closed meetingrsquos minutes when those minutes
are made public
The standard that the Board is to use when determining how much information about a
personnel matter is to be disclosed in the closed sessionrsquos minutes is set forth in South Jersey
Publishing Company Inc v New Jersey Expressway Authority 124 NJ 478 (1991) That
standard is that a) the public needs information if it is properly fulfill its role of evaluating the
wisdom of governmental action or a decision not to act b) that New Jerseys strong public
policy requires that a public bodyrsquos actions and decisions to not act be disclosed in the bodys
closed meeting minutes along with sufficient facts and information to permit the public to
understand and appraise the reasonableness of the bodys determination and c) to the extent a
cognizable privacy interest may be compromised by the required disclosure the extent of
disclosure may be modified through redactions of the minutes provided the public interest in
disclosure is not subverted
2 NJSA104-12(b)(7) is to prevent adverse parties to litigation and contracts from learning the details of the
public bodyrsquos negotiation tactics and litigation strategy3 See the discussion in Paff v Washington Township Docket No MER-L-2205-07 and Nevin v Asbury Park City
Board 2005 WL 2847974 (App Div November 1 2005) which are on-line at
httpogtfarchiveorgOGTFWashingtonpdf (Nevin begins at page 44 of the PDF file at the link)
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 37 of 77
4
Thus regardless of whether the Board disciplines Ms Smith or chooses to not impose
discipline due to her lateness the outcome should be recorded in the closed meeting minutes
The question of whether that entry in the minutes should be redacted before the minutes are
made public requires a balancing of Ms Smithrsquos interest in keeping the disciplinary matter
private against the publicrsquos interest in effectively monitoring the Board If the Board with
counselrsquos advice determines after balancing these interests that the outcome will be published
unredacted in the closed sessionrsquos minutes (ie if the minutes will disclose to the public eg that
ldquoMs Smith was suspended for three days on account of her habitual latenessrdquo) then the exact
nature of the matter (ie that ldquothe Board will discuss disciplining Ms Smith for excessive
latenessrdquo) should be set forth in the closed meetingrsquos NJSA 104-13 resolution Inversely if the
Board determines that Ms Smithrsquos privacy interest exceeds the publicrsquos right to know then less
information (eg ldquothe Board will discuss disciplining an employee for excessive latenessrdquo)
should be set forth in the closed meetingrsquos NJSA 104-13 resolution
In other words if the officer or employee being discussed doesnt have a privacy interest
sufficient to withstand a citizens request for the executive session minutes why should not the
public know the topic of the executive session prior to it occurring
Irsquove attached as Exhibit pages 1 -3 is a model resolution that I would like the Board to
use in the future
Issue 2 Executive Session minutes
Attached as Exhibit Page 4 as an example are the Boardrsquos July 28 2010 executive session
minutes It is troubling that a meeting that lasted over an hour is being summed up in a single
sentence ldquoMr Phil Stern addressed the Board of Education about personnel issuesrdquo These
minutes are not ldquoreasonably comprehensiblerdquo as required by NJSA 104-14
The purpose of closed meeting minutes is not merely to inform the public of whatoccurred during the private session but also to create a record for the Board membersthemselves A Board member who is newly elected in 2012 should be able by referringsolely to the minutes to figure out what issues the Board addressed during any previouslyheld closed meeting This hypothetical Board member after reading the July 28 2010closed minutes could not possibly figure out which employees or officials Mr Stern wastalking about
Better practice would be to record closed minutes that are much morecomprehensive but to redact that material that must be shielded from public view Forexample the minutes could have said
Mr Stern addressed the Board of Education about the habitualtardiness of 2nd grade teacher Mary Doe and her propensity to eatlibrary paste and scream hysterically during fire drills Herecommended that she be sent for psychiatric evaluation
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 38 of 77
5
Of course if a member of the public requested these hypothetical minutes the Boardmay need to redact them in order to protect privacy interests The point however is thatregardless of whether unredacted closed meeting minutes are ever released to the publicthey should contain sufficient details so that the Board members themselves can monthsor years later know what was discussed
Attached as Exhibit pages 5 ndash 9 is an order recently entered in Schmidt et al v City of
Gloucester City et al Docket No CAM-L-1287-11 As you can see paraA(3) supports my position
that the Boardrsquos minutes are not ldquoreasonably comprehensiblerdquo as required by law
Conclusion
Since some public bodies do not take my requests for Meetings Act compliance seriously
I regret having to inform the Board that I will sue for declaratory and injunctive relief in
accordance with NJSA 104-16 unless I receive assurances from the Boardmdashwithin a few days
after its May 10 2011 meetingmdashthat it will work in good faith to improve the amount of
information in both its closed session resolutions and minutes If the Boardrsquos agenda is already
set for the May 10 2011 meeting please at least acknowledge this letter and let me know the
date of the meeting at which it will be considered
Thank you very much for your attention to this matter I look forward to hearing from
you
Sincerely
John Paff
cc Philip E Stern Esq w enc (via e-mail to psternasgllawcom )
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 39 of 77
RUNNEMEDE BOARD OF EDUCATIONRESOLUTION NO ___________
AUTHORIZING EXECUTIVE SESSION
WHEREAS while the Sen Byron M Baer Open Public Meetings Act (NJSA 104-6 et seq) requires allmeetings of the Runnemede Board of Education to be held in public NJSA 104-12(b) sets forth nine (9)types of matters that may lawfully be discussed in ldquoExecutive Sessionrdquo ie without the public beingpermitted to attend and
WHEREAS the Runnemede Board of Education has determined that _____ (insert number) issues arepermitted by NJSA 104-12(b) to be discussed without the public in attendance shall be discussed duringan Executive Session to be held on _________________________ 20____ at _______ PM and
WHEREAS the nine (9) exceptions to public meetings set forth in NJSA 104-12(b) are listed below andnext to each exception is a box within which the number of issues to be privately discussed that fall withinthat exception shall be written and after each exception is a space where additional information that willdisclose as much information about the discussion as possible without undermining the purpose of theexception shall be written
ldquo(1) Any matter which by express provision of Federal law State statute or rule of courtshall be rendered confidential or excluded from public discussionrdquo The legal citation to theprovision(s) at issue is__________________________ and the nature of the matter described asspecifically as possible without undermining the need for confidentiality is _______________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(2) Any matter in which the release of information would impair a right to receive fundsfrom the federal governmentrdquo The nature of the matter described as specifically as possiblewithout undermining the need for confidentiality is _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(3) Any material the disclosure of which constitutes an unwarranted invasion of individualprivacy such as any records data reports recommendations or other personal material ofany educational training social service medical health custodial child protectionrehabilitation legal defense welfare housing relocation insurance and similar program orinstitution operated by a public body pertaining to any specific individual admitted to orserved by such institution or program including but not limited to information relative tothe individuals personal and family circumstances and any material pertaining toadmission discharge treatment progress or condition of any individual unless theindividual concerned (or in the case of a minor or incompetent his guardian) shall requestin writing that the same be disclosed publiclyrdquo The nature of the matter described asspecifically as possible without undermining the need for confidentiality is______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(4) Any collective bargaining agreement or the terms and conditions of which are proposedfor inclusion in any collective bargaining agreement including the negotiation of terms andconditions with employees or representatives of employees of the public bodyrdquo The collectivebargaining contract(s) discussed are between the Board and ____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Exhibit Page 1Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 40 of 77
ldquo(5) Any matter involving the purchase lease or acquisition of real property with publicfunds the setting of bank rates or investment of public funds where it could adversely affectthe public interest if discussion of such matters were disclosedrdquo The nature of the matterdescribed as specifically as possible without undermining the need for confidentiality is____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(6) Any tactics and techniques utilized in protecting the safety and property of the publicprovided that their disclosure could impair such protection Any investigations of violationsor possible violations of the lawrdquo The nature of the matter described as specifically as possiblewithout undermining the need for confidentiality is ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(7) Any pending or anticipated litigation or contract negotiation in which the public body isor may become a party Any matters falling within the attorney-client privilege to the extentthat confidentiality is required in order for the attorney to exercise his ethicalduties as a lawyerrdquo The parties to and docket numbers of each item of litigation andor theparties to each contract discussed are __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ andnature of the discussion described as specifically as possible without undermining the need forconfidentiality is ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(8) Any matter involving the employment appointment termination of employment termsand conditions of employment evaluation of the performance promotion or disciplining ofany specific prospective public officer or employee or current public officer or employeeemployed or appointed by the public body unless all individual employees or appointees whoserights could be adversely affected request in writing that such matter or matters be discussed ata public meetingrdquo Subject to the balancing of the publicrsquos interest and the employeersquos privacyrights under South Jersey Publishing Co v New Jersey Expressway Authority 124 NJ 478 theemployee(s) and nature of the discussion described as specifically as possible withoutundermining the need for confidentiality are _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(9) Any deliberation of a public body occurring after a public hearing that may result in theimposition of a specific civil penalty upon the responding party or the suspension or loss of alicense or permit belonging to the responding party as a result of an act of omission forwhich the responding party bears responsibilityrdquo The nature of the matter described asspecifically as possible without undermining the need for confidentiality is______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
WHEREAS the length of the Executive Session is estimated to be ________ minutes after which the publicmeeting of the Board shall (circle one) reconvene and immediately adjourn or reconvene and proceed withbusiness
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Runnemede Board of Education will go into ExecutiveSession for only the above stated reasons
Exhibit Page 2Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 41 of 77
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board hereby declares that its discussion of the aforementionedsubject(s) will be made public at a time when the publicrsquos interest in disclosure is greater than any privacy orgovernmental interest being protected from disclosure For each of the above items the estimated date bywhich such disclosure can be made andor the occurrence that needs to take place before disclosure can bemade are listed below (attach separate sheet if necessary)
Subject of Discussion Estimated Date Necessary Occurrence
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Clerk at the present public meeting shall read aloud enough ofthis resolution so that members of the public in attendance can understand as precisely as possible thenature of the matters that will privately discussed
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Clerk on the next business day following this meeting shallfurnish a copy of this resolution to any member of the public who requests one at the fees allowed byNJSA 471A-1 et seq
_________________________________Board President
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS ATRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTIONAPPROVED BY THE RUNNEMEDE BOARD OF EDUCATION AT ITSPUBLIC MEETING HELD ON ______________________20___
_______________________________________Board Secretary
Exhibit Page 3Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 42 of 77
Exhibit Page 4Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 43 of 77
Exhibit Page 5Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 44 of 77
Exhibit Page 6Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 45 of 77
Exhibit Page 7Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 46 of 77
Exhibit Page 8Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 47 of 77
Exhibit Page 9Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 48 of 77
Subject Records RequestFrom John Paff ltpaffpoboxcomgtDate Sat 07 May 2011 161444 -0400To vcarmodyrunnemedeschoolsorgCC psternasgllawcom
Ms Carmody
Please accept this e-mail as my request for government records inaccordance with the Open Public Records Act (OPRA) and the commonlaw right of access Please respond and send all responsivedocuments to me via e-mail at paffpoboxcom If e-mail is notpossible please fax responses and responsive records to me at908-325-0129 Also I would appreciate it if you wouldacknowledge your receipt of this e-mail
Background
In response to a records request I recently received redactedexecutive session minutes for the following dates July 28 2010(first session) August 26 2010 February 2 2011 February 232011 (two sessions) and March 2 2011 Although Mr Stern providedme with a sheet entitled Documents Exempt From OPRA request thatpurports to explain these redactions I am still unclear as to whythe matter was redacted and whether it was lawfully redacted
First I dont understand references such as NJSA 471A-11(12)(c) The version of OPRA that I have (plus every other oneIve seen) does not have internal numbers within NJSA471A-11 Am I correct that NJSA 471A-11(12)(c) isintended to refer to the exemption for records in connection withcollective negotiations including documents and statements ofstrategy or negotiating position and that NJSA 471A-11(7)is intended to refer to any record within the attorney-clientprivilege This paragraph shall not be construed as exempting fromaccess attorney or consultant bills or invoices except that suchbills or invoices may be redacted to remove any informationprotected by the attorney-client privilege Please advise
Second even if I correctly corresponded the claimed exemptions tothe OPRA statute I have no way of knowing whether the mattersredacted are actually exempt from access When a custodiansuppresses any portion of any requested record NJSA471A-5(g) requires him or her to state the ldquospecific basisrdquo foreach suppressed element Beyond stating the ldquospecific basisrdquo foreach suppressed element he or she is required to ldquoproduce
Records Request
1 of 2 622011 810 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 49 of 77
specific reliable evidence sufficient to meet a statutorilyrecognized basis for confidentialityrdquo Courier News v HunterdonCounty Prosecutorrsquos Office 358 NJ Super 373 382-83 (App Div2003) Further he or she must explain each suppression in amanner that ldquowill enable other parties to assess the applicabilityof the privilege or protectionrdquo Paff v New Jersey Department ofLabor Board of Review 379 NJ Super 346 354-55 (2005)(quoting R 410-2(e))
Records requested
Runnemede Board of Education minutes for the following dates July28 2010 (728 pm session only) August 26 2010 February 22011 February 23 2011 (both sessions) and March 2 2011 Iwould like these minutes redacted as narrowly as possible if atall For each redaction I request a written explanation thatmeets the requirements of the case law cited above
cc Phil Stern
Records Request
2 of 2 622011 810 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 50 of 77
Subject Re Fwd Runnemede Board of Education Open PublicMeetings ActFrom John Paff ltpaffpoboxcomgtDate Mon 09 May 2011 134726 -0400To Nancy Ward ltnwardrunnemedeschoolsorggt
Thank you
On 592011 116 PM Nancy Ward wrote
Mr Paff
The Board has named me Custodian of Records Please direct allfuturecommunication to me The May 10 2011 meeting is theRe-organization ofthe Runnemede Board of Education The agenda is set and is verycomprehensive I intend to defer the letter and any discussionregardingits content to the next regular meeting the date of which willbe setat the re-organization tomorrow night In keeping with thedistrictsmeeting pattern that will be May 25 2011
Nancy BWard EdD
Superintendent of Schools
-----Original Message-----From John PaffSent 572011 42300 PMTo nwardrunnemedeschoolsorgCc vcarmodyrunnemedeschoolsorg psternasgllawcomSubject Fwd Runnemede Board of Education Open Public MeetingsAct
Here is another e-mail in case my original one should have beendirected to Ms Ward and not Ms Carmody
JP
-------- Original Message --------Subject Runnemede Board of Education Open Public Meetings ActDate Sat 07 May 2011 152319 -0400From John Paff
Re Fwd Runnemede Board of Education Open Public Meetings Act
1 of 2 622011 811 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 51 of 77
Reply-To paffpoboxcomTo vcarmodyrunnemedeschoolsorg psternasgllawcom
Ms Carmody and Mr Stern
Attached is a letter that I would like the Board to consider atits May10 2011 meeting Would you please a) acknowledge receipt of theletterand b) distribute it to all the Board members
Note that the last paragraph of the letter indicates that I willfilesuit against the Board if the issues in the letter arentaddressedSo if the Boards agenda for the May 10th meeting is so tightthat myletter cannot be accommodated please advise me of such andprovide ameeting date where my letter will be addressed so that I knowthat I amnot being ignored
Thank you
John Paff ChairmanNew Jersey Libertarian PartysOpen Government Advocacy Project
Re Fwd Runnemede Board of Education Open Public Meetings Act
2 of 2 622011 811 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 52 of 77
Subject OPRA RequestFrom Philip Stern ltpsternasgllawcomgtDate Fri 20 May 2011 161015 -0500To paffpoboxcom ltpaffpoboxcomgtCC Nancy Ward ltnwardrunnemedeschoolsorggt
Mr Paff please find attached to this email a response to your request forbusiness records Please note that in providing you with the attachedrecords the Runnemede Borough Board of Education waives no rightsregarding the attorney-client privilege Do not hesitate to call me if youhave any questions Phil Stern
Philip E SternAdams Stern Gutierrez amp Lattiboudere LLCThe Legal Center1037 Raymond Blvd Suite 710Newark New Jersey 07102(973) 735-2742 (office telephone)(201) 914-2415 (cellular telephone)(973) 735-2743 (office telefax)
May 20 Paff responsepdf
Content-DescriptionMay 20 Paffresponsepdf
Content-Type applicationpdf
Content-Encoding base64
OPRA Request
1 of 1 622011 815 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 53 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 54 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 55 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 56 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 57 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 58 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 59 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 60 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 61 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 62 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 63 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 64 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 65 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 66 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 67 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 68 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 69 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 70 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 71 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 72 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 73 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 74 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 75 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 76 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 77 of 77
- Civil Complaint
- Exhibits
-
No school board willingly enters into an agreement like this he insisted But eventhough its not a popular decision its the lesser of two evils
Residents unhappy about the districts handling of the situation include Dan Conard ajournalism student at Rowan University Conard writes a blog where he discusses schooldistrict and municipal matters To comment on this topic he filed Open Public RecordsAct (OPRA) document requests
I just wanted to get it out there so people know what is going on Conard said
Ward said she has no quarrel with the student but believes Brazeltons case is anunusual circumstance
It (the separation agreement) was the most responsible thing the district could havedone she insisted Was it a bitter pill to swallow It took the board (a while) beforethey felt it was something they could do but it makes the most sense
Ward said the part-time arrangement with Carmody is working out well and that as thedistrict improves efficiency it is unlikely another full-time business administrator will behired particularly when Executive County Superintendent Peggy Nicolosi has advisedagainst it
Among the options being considered are another part-time business administrator or ashared-service agreement with another district
Ward said she would have preferred the money being expended in this case be spent oneducational programs and teachers particularly this year
Although voters passed Runnemedes 2010-11 budget while many others were defeatedlast April the district of 853 students in K-8 lost six staffers and streamlined its gifted-and-talented program after state aid was cut
Ward also defended the decision to keep a maintenance techniciansupervisor positioncreated in 2008 noting it has saved at least $145000 each year
Mark Speck of Voorhees earns $50000 in the post Through June 2010 it was filled byDoug McGarry a former building and grounds supervisor in the Somerdale district Heearned $60000 in Runnemede but had more experience than Speck Ward said
Before Brazelton arrived in Runnemede the business administrator also served asmaintenance supervisor Ward said that actually cost the district more because it had topay outside maintenance workers sometimes for faulty work
Many things had been done to the facilities that were not to the boards satisfactionshe said That first year with our own maintenance person we saved $145000 becausewe hired a person who fixed things
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 27 of 77
Speck works with vendors going over bids and quotes and also does minor repairs thatno longer have to be paid for piecemeal Ward said the position is staying in the 2011-2012 budget adopted preliminarily on Wednesday
Hes the guy whos here at 4 am making sure weve got snow plows when we needthem Ward said Hes dirty and sweaty -- and hes excellent
Ward said the budget sent to the county includes a $78 annual tax increase for theowner of a home assessed at the $97800 borough average but does not cut staff orprograms
Kurth hopes to tweak the budget and lower the tax hike before it is introduced to thepublic on March 23 But she agreed the maintenance supervisor will stay
That was an investment on the part of the school district Kurth said
Reach Barbara S Rothschild at (856) 486-2416 or barothschildcamdengannettcom
--Comments
User Imageamonkeycoulddoit wroteThe mayor cant hear you because she doesnt even know how to turn on a computerNot that it was a requirement that the mayor should know how to use one I think theonly requirement is that they have a pulse And she does but barely372011 12406 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imageamonkeycoulddoit wroteTo sickofpolsnj it does seem that snoopysam has some inside information And whenyou say hows that mayors race looking I hope that you dont mean that someone fromthe disfunctional school board is going to run for mayor or council or some other electedposition considering the mess that they made on the school board372011 11832 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imageamonkeycoulddoit wroteIf the school board president had listened to staff when the hostil work enviroment issuestarted then she might not be in this pickle She should have spent the money on thelegal fees because if everything is true about the hostile enviroment then they wouldhave won the lawsuit hands down and not had to pay out anything and gotten their legalfees back Another example of elected officials not capable of doing the job they are inLets hope that some people come out of the woodwork to run for school board peoplewho care about the kids and the taxpayers372011 11309 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imageamonkeycoulddoit wrote
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 28 of 77
The school boad is not as inept as the mayor and council You dont have to be a collegegraduate or or even be able to read or write to get an elected position in runnemedeThe 2 new council members got elected because the are involved in the union andeveryone who supports the union came out to vote And the new mayor must have a lotof friends But now after the few months they have been in office it is clear to see thatthey are not able to handle the job Mayor14 is right that the people of Runnemedevoted because they thought they would get something in return for their vote but itlooks like they were wrong In the upcoming elections for school board and council votefor the person who will do the best job whether you like them or not Dont just vote forsomeone because you are told to372011 10214 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagethemayor14 wrotei am so glad this article was written and it clearly points out how inept the runnemedeboard of education actually is the board of education is not elected based on businessand education talent the elections are nothing more than a popularity contest i dontknow how other towns operate but runnemede boro is a total joke when it come toelections be it school board or general elections i wish everyone would get their headsout of their A$$ and truly investigate the school board canidates that are running forelection VOTE WITH YOUR HEAD NOT WITH YOUR HEART362011 91350 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagesavetheschools wroteSeveral people are running for the board for four open seats I signed a petition todayfor a new woman running Members are not paid If you live in Runnemede shopstewardyou have until Tuesday to get a petition submitted I asked and found out there is only 5people on average at the BOE meetings every month in Runnemede I hope more peoplestart to go I plan on it myself And we all need to go every month not just when weread negative press about our schools That is the only way we would all stay informedand not rely on the young man submitting OPRA requests Our town has always beenabout the kids and it needs to get back that way362011 80936 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser ImageShopsteward wroteWhy did it take one young man sending in OPRA requests to bring all this to lightWhy are you relying upon him to get to the bottom of it You say The other members(except for the one who was just arrested and resigned) are good people and didnothing wrong to the district and that might be true except for the fact that theyallowed that incredible salary and benefits to be given out and even though all kinds ofrumors were flying around it took an outsider with OPRA requests to bring this ghastlypimple to a head Sounds more like none of them are doing their jobs and should be outof office and off the payroll They should all just resign They arent doing the job thatwas assigned to them362011 32559 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Image
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 29 of 77
Shopsteward wroteA crime was committed here It began with a violation of the Publics trust by the peoplewho allowed this contract to be signed in the first place What a jokeHow many moreof these jobs are hidden in the budgets of our Schools There needs to be a thouroughcleaning of all thses tyeps of employees everywhere At the State County Municipaland Scool board level and the appointed Authorities too Everyone screams about theUnions but whenever you hear of some great big abuse it turns out the person wasnteven in the UnionClean up this mess first Mr Christie before yougo after the little guys It will save us all a lot more money362011 101606 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser ImageShopsteward wroteI still dont get itHow is a part time24 hr a week job worth so much This is aprime example of the waste that is giving the public workers a bad nameThe onlyproblem is it isnt some Union personIts management and its the same all over This isjust the tip of the iceberg they scream about the Unions but the real waste is in jobs likethis oneNo way this job or the thousands of others like it should be paid so well99465 PLUS BENEFITS incrediblethere should be a lawandthe person gets a pension based on that bloated salarytooThere should be other people losing their jobs not for theseperation aggreement but for letting this evenhappen352011 101125 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagethesplits wroteI guess this is Runnemedes version of a shared service352011 73450 PM
User Imagethesplits wroteLooks like its the same old Runnemede and I thought we voted for change Mayor352011 73202 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagesavetheschools wroteFrom what I understand and I live in town the board went into this separationagreement because the BA would have had a potential lawsuit and it would have costthe school district and tax payers a ton of money Much more than they are spendingnow And yes it is one school board member who was apparently corrupt Just one Theyoung man who was mentioned in the article has been OPRA requesting items and willget to the bottom of this situation with the former BA and the certain board memberBut that is just one person The other members (except for the one who was justarrested and resigned) are good people and did nothing wrong to the district Thisformer BA and her friend who was hired as the maint supervisor have been a hot topicfor a few years Ask the employees they were awful and needed to go It is awful thatthis money was not spent on our children It was a trainwreck from the beginning and ifI recall correctly when the hiring took place only one of the members voted no and that
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 30 of 77
was the local high school teacher metioned in another post Runnemede schools arefantastic and maybe the new people running for election will get some answers andmake some changes And maybe the BOE member who was mentioned by employees asbeing the reason why there could be a possible lawsuit should just resign I understandadmin make good money but they also need to be accountable for their actions and ifthe BA made a hostile environment and was supported by one BOE member both shouldbe gonenot just the BA352011 33207 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagecookmom wroteWhere is Gov Christies veto power352011 30321 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagecookmom wroteThis all happened with a local police officer and a FOP member and local high schoolteacher and member of the NJEA on the board The Runnemede Board is looking alotlike the DRPA and was this group picked by the new Mayor352011 30042 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagesickofpolsnj wroteThe real truth is the Board of Education member and Brazelton and the unethicalsituation that THEY created The questionable contracts and underhanded deals There isa certain Board Member that hopes that this ends here well it doesnt There is not aTeacher or employee in Runnemede Schools that would defend Brazelton same goes forSomerdale And many are willing to bring out MANY of the things that Brazelton did todestroy the district The ENTIRE Runnemede School Community is thrilled that Brazeltonis gone Snoopysam is clearly one of two people Kelly or the Board Member shouldwe name names Hows that Mayors race looking352011 114254 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser ImageShopsteward wrote$99465 plus benefits How much does she pay for her share of those benefitsor are they free to her Her replacement only works 24 hours a week are we being toldthat she got that much money for a part time job What is the matter with theidiots that hired her to begin withNo one should get that kind of money for a part timeThat is an awful lot of money for that kind of job We should not be surprised at all Thiskind of thing is everywhere in Camden CountyIts the NORMAL way of doingbusiness352011 113922 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagelookfar111 wroteYep same old story hire someone for $98000 when 10 equally qualified people woulddo it for 60k with a 20 year top out at 75 k Then a sweetheart adios gift And the cherry
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 31 of 77
on top Another tax increase for the people God I hate what the democrat machinehave done to this once great state352011 111649 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser ImageSnoopysam wrotesickofpolsnj you must be on ot those employees that Brazelton held accountable forHER actions You are right there is so much more to this story and when the real truthscome out there will be some emplopyeesadministratorsboard members hanging theirheads in shame Talk about wasting taxpayer dollars take a look at some of the lazyincompetent employees that Brazelton had to deal withand their HUGE mistakes thathad to be corrected which cost the taxpayers thousands upon thousands of dollars352011 94250 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagesickofpolsnj wroteYou are exactly correct A teacher would never get a sweatheart deal like this I wonderwhich Board Member it was that was mentioned in that letter Did you read the blog thatthis all came out on it has way more details than this articlehttpdansviewrunnemedewordpresscom352011 92934 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagesickofpolsnj wroteOnly thing is Runnemede never had these issues Somerdale had the same EXACT issueswith Brazelton Administrators arent allowed to comment however talk to the teachersand employees off record they will tell you all about Kelly352011 92726 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagesickofpolsnj wroteThere is so much more to this story I hope the CP will run a follow up 1 Look into therealtionship and hiring surrounding Doug the maintenance supervisor 2 Check intoBrazeltons past employment Somerdale Schools 3 Brazelton is rumored to be hired atthe completion of the settlement in Deptford 4 Look into unethical practices between aBoard Member and Brazelton 5 And what about the other Board member that wasrecently charged with a serious crime352011 92315 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imageicallbullschit wroteOnce again the government tries to pin their mistakes on an individual when they screwup royally What the paper fails to report is the other side Maybe years and years ofmismanagement and patronage were uncovered and it became a hostile environmentwhen people got called on their actions and the same old routine was stopped Maybethe school board realized it would be cheaper to pay one than to pay many for theirmistakes Maybe the school board was willing to pay in order to keep their dirty littlesecrets covered up Maybe the resident should look deeper into the actions of the schoolboard and the rest of the administration Maybe I am wrong but it seems that the board
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 32 of 77
got called on some issues and now they are attacking one individual to cover theirtracks They seem to be acting like the GREAT WIZARD OF OZ Pay no attention to theidiots behind the curtain we are the all powerful and all knowing school board Pull backthe curtain people because there are people behind there that are faking their waythrough and going to wind up costing the district millions Just saying352011 85642 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagecookmom wroteSchool board President Colleen Kurth said it was much easier to go with a separationagreement than pay more legal fees She compared paying Brazelton to paying ateacher out sick while a substitute fills in The job just has to go on Kurth said I amconfused A teacher out SICK is NOT the same as a HOSTILE work enviorment How cana medical condition be compared to a person being accused of a hostile workenviorment A teacher would be REQUIRED to use their sick days~ since this is beingcompared to an illness ~was Brazelton REQUIRED to give up her sickvacation pay orwas that part of the dealWas she also paid for those days Wouldnt we all love to becollecting a salary from two towns As now she is being paid by Runnemde AND acurrent SCHOOL district where she is currently employed THIS is the waste in ourSchool districts352011 83552 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imageneocon wroteShe is part of the Protected Classes All you need to know is that she is better thanyou so just keep moveing along Nothing to see here352011 81912 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report Abuse
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 33 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 34 of 77
New Jersey Libertarian PartyOpen Government Advocacy Project
John Paff Chairman
PO Box 5424
Somerset NJ 08875-5424
Phone 732-873-1251 - Fax 908-325-0129
Email lpsmcpoboxcom
May 7 2011
Hon Colleen Kurth President and members of the
Runnemede Board of Education
505 W Third Ave
Runnemede NJ 08078 (via e-mail to vcarmodyrunnemedeschoolsorg )
Dear President Kurth and Board members
I write both individually and on behalf the New Jersey Libertarian Partys Open
Government Advocacy Project to comment on 1) the manner in which the Board of Education
goes into nonpublic (ie executive or closed) session and 2) the level of detail contained within
the Boardrsquos executive session minutes
Issue 1 Executive Session resolutions
As you are aware the Senator Byron M Baer Open Public Meetings Act requires public
bodies such as the Runnemede Board of Education to publicly pass a resolution before
excluding the public from a meeting The statute that requires the resolution states
NJSA 104-13mdashClosed meetings resolution to conduct
No public body shall exclude the public from any meeting to discuss any
matter described in subsection 7 b (104-12) until the public body shall
first adopt a resolution at a meeting to which the public shall be admitted
a Stating the general nature of the subject to be discussed and
b Stating as precisely as possible the time when and the circumstances
under which the discussion conducted in closed session of the public body
can be disclosed to the public
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 35 of 77
2
By way of a recent records request I received resolutions which purport to authorize
executive sessions intended to be held by the Board of Education on July 28 2010 (2 sessions)
August 20 2010 February 2 1011 February 23 2011 (2 sessions) and March 2 2011 Those
resolutions which are virtually identical to each other state
Executive Session to discuss student matters personnel contractual and
legal matters [time and a statement as to whether action will be
taken]
[identity of maker of motion etc]
Resolved that pursuant to Section 8 of the Public Meetings Act the public
shall be excluded from that portion of the meeting involving the discussion
of personnel legal and contractual matters Further resolved that
discussion of such subject matters discussed in Executive Session can be
disclosed to public upon official action if any at the conclusion of the
executive session or at a public session at some later date
I dont think that this form of resolution satisfies NJSA 104-13 because it gives the
public no real sense of what is being privately discussed1 To paraphrase the highest court of of
another state a body which only announces ldquolegal mattersrdquo or ldquopersonnel negotiationsrdquo for
going into executive session has said nothing It might has well have stated to the audience
ldquoLadies and gentlemen we are going into executive sessionrdquo and stopped there Hinds County
Board of Supervisors v Common Cause of Mississippi 551 So2d 107 114 (MS 1989)
Of course there can be no dispute that the Board of Education often has legitimate
reasons to meet in nonpublic session Among these reasons is the need to prevent the adverse
parties in litigation or contract negotiations from gaining an unfair advantage and to allow
members of the governing body to debate and deliberate personnel matters without public
scrutiny or participation But the need to discuss matters privately should not prevent the
public from being informed as precisely as possible of the topics that are being privately
discussed
For example suppose that Runnemede Board is being sued by a Mr Jones who was
injured after he slipped and fell on what he claims to be negligently maintained school
property Since the lawsuit is already a public record there is no public purpose served by
vaguely describing a private discussion of it as ldquostudent matters personnel contractual and
legal mattersrdquo Rather the resolution should at the very least describe the private discussion as
1 In January 2007 when I most recently litigated this issue Middlesex County Superior Court Judge Alexander P
Waugh issued a written decision in which he agreed with other court decisions that closed session resolutions
should contain as much information as is consistent with full public knowledge without doing any harm to the
public interest Judge Waughs decision and other case documents are on the Web at
httpogtfarchiveorgOGTFMonroeBOEWebreadypdf
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 36 of 77
3
ldquoDiscussion of slip and fall negligence suit Jones v Runnemede Board Docket No CAM-L-
012345-11rdquo This way the public has a very good sense of what the Boardrsquos private discussion is
about while the ability of the Board to develop its lawsuit strategy is not undermined
Using the same example suppose that Jonesrsquo attorney sent the Boardrsquos attorney an offer
to fully settle the lawsuit upon the Boardrsquos payment of $20000 While the Board would
obviously need to discuss how to respond to the offer in private lest Jones or his attorney
would be in the audience witnessing the discussion there is no reason why the public cannot be
informed in the NJSA 104-13 resolution that the Board will meet in private to discuss ldquoa
settlement offer received from the Plaintiff in the slip and fall negligence suit known as Jones v
Runnemede Board Docket No CAM-L-012345-11 in which the Plaintiff offers to settle the suit
in exchange for the Board paying him $20000rdquo While it may initially seem that this would
provide ldquotoo muchrdquo information to the public this concern disappears once it is realized that
the sole purpose of the exception2 that allows litigation matters to be discussed in private is to
keep the adverse party to the litigation in the dark regarding the Boardrsquos position3 Since in this
example the adverse party (ie Jones) already knows that he offered to settle the lawsuit for
$20000 there is no legitimate reason why the public should not also know of the tendered
settlement offer
As another example suppose that a personnel matter such as whether or not a Mrs
Smith a public works employee should be disciplined because of repeatedly arriving late to
work is to be discussed in closed session In such a case the amount of detail set forth in the
NJSA 104-13 resolution should correspond to the amount of detail that the Board and its
attorney predict will be publicly disclosed in the closed meetingrsquos minutes when those minutes
are made public
The standard that the Board is to use when determining how much information about a
personnel matter is to be disclosed in the closed sessionrsquos minutes is set forth in South Jersey
Publishing Company Inc v New Jersey Expressway Authority 124 NJ 478 (1991) That
standard is that a) the public needs information if it is properly fulfill its role of evaluating the
wisdom of governmental action or a decision not to act b) that New Jerseys strong public
policy requires that a public bodyrsquos actions and decisions to not act be disclosed in the bodys
closed meeting minutes along with sufficient facts and information to permit the public to
understand and appraise the reasonableness of the bodys determination and c) to the extent a
cognizable privacy interest may be compromised by the required disclosure the extent of
disclosure may be modified through redactions of the minutes provided the public interest in
disclosure is not subverted
2 NJSA104-12(b)(7) is to prevent adverse parties to litigation and contracts from learning the details of the
public bodyrsquos negotiation tactics and litigation strategy3 See the discussion in Paff v Washington Township Docket No MER-L-2205-07 and Nevin v Asbury Park City
Board 2005 WL 2847974 (App Div November 1 2005) which are on-line at
httpogtfarchiveorgOGTFWashingtonpdf (Nevin begins at page 44 of the PDF file at the link)
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 37 of 77
4
Thus regardless of whether the Board disciplines Ms Smith or chooses to not impose
discipline due to her lateness the outcome should be recorded in the closed meeting minutes
The question of whether that entry in the minutes should be redacted before the minutes are
made public requires a balancing of Ms Smithrsquos interest in keeping the disciplinary matter
private against the publicrsquos interest in effectively monitoring the Board If the Board with
counselrsquos advice determines after balancing these interests that the outcome will be published
unredacted in the closed sessionrsquos minutes (ie if the minutes will disclose to the public eg that
ldquoMs Smith was suspended for three days on account of her habitual latenessrdquo) then the exact
nature of the matter (ie that ldquothe Board will discuss disciplining Ms Smith for excessive
latenessrdquo) should be set forth in the closed meetingrsquos NJSA 104-13 resolution Inversely if the
Board determines that Ms Smithrsquos privacy interest exceeds the publicrsquos right to know then less
information (eg ldquothe Board will discuss disciplining an employee for excessive latenessrdquo)
should be set forth in the closed meetingrsquos NJSA 104-13 resolution
In other words if the officer or employee being discussed doesnt have a privacy interest
sufficient to withstand a citizens request for the executive session minutes why should not the
public know the topic of the executive session prior to it occurring
Irsquove attached as Exhibit pages 1 -3 is a model resolution that I would like the Board to
use in the future
Issue 2 Executive Session minutes
Attached as Exhibit Page 4 as an example are the Boardrsquos July 28 2010 executive session
minutes It is troubling that a meeting that lasted over an hour is being summed up in a single
sentence ldquoMr Phil Stern addressed the Board of Education about personnel issuesrdquo These
minutes are not ldquoreasonably comprehensiblerdquo as required by NJSA 104-14
The purpose of closed meeting minutes is not merely to inform the public of whatoccurred during the private session but also to create a record for the Board membersthemselves A Board member who is newly elected in 2012 should be able by referringsolely to the minutes to figure out what issues the Board addressed during any previouslyheld closed meeting This hypothetical Board member after reading the July 28 2010closed minutes could not possibly figure out which employees or officials Mr Stern wastalking about
Better practice would be to record closed minutes that are much morecomprehensive but to redact that material that must be shielded from public view Forexample the minutes could have said
Mr Stern addressed the Board of Education about the habitualtardiness of 2nd grade teacher Mary Doe and her propensity to eatlibrary paste and scream hysterically during fire drills Herecommended that she be sent for psychiatric evaluation
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 38 of 77
5
Of course if a member of the public requested these hypothetical minutes the Boardmay need to redact them in order to protect privacy interests The point however is thatregardless of whether unredacted closed meeting minutes are ever released to the publicthey should contain sufficient details so that the Board members themselves can monthsor years later know what was discussed
Attached as Exhibit pages 5 ndash 9 is an order recently entered in Schmidt et al v City of
Gloucester City et al Docket No CAM-L-1287-11 As you can see paraA(3) supports my position
that the Boardrsquos minutes are not ldquoreasonably comprehensiblerdquo as required by law
Conclusion
Since some public bodies do not take my requests for Meetings Act compliance seriously
I regret having to inform the Board that I will sue for declaratory and injunctive relief in
accordance with NJSA 104-16 unless I receive assurances from the Boardmdashwithin a few days
after its May 10 2011 meetingmdashthat it will work in good faith to improve the amount of
information in both its closed session resolutions and minutes If the Boardrsquos agenda is already
set for the May 10 2011 meeting please at least acknowledge this letter and let me know the
date of the meeting at which it will be considered
Thank you very much for your attention to this matter I look forward to hearing from
you
Sincerely
John Paff
cc Philip E Stern Esq w enc (via e-mail to psternasgllawcom )
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 39 of 77
RUNNEMEDE BOARD OF EDUCATIONRESOLUTION NO ___________
AUTHORIZING EXECUTIVE SESSION
WHEREAS while the Sen Byron M Baer Open Public Meetings Act (NJSA 104-6 et seq) requires allmeetings of the Runnemede Board of Education to be held in public NJSA 104-12(b) sets forth nine (9)types of matters that may lawfully be discussed in ldquoExecutive Sessionrdquo ie without the public beingpermitted to attend and
WHEREAS the Runnemede Board of Education has determined that _____ (insert number) issues arepermitted by NJSA 104-12(b) to be discussed without the public in attendance shall be discussed duringan Executive Session to be held on _________________________ 20____ at _______ PM and
WHEREAS the nine (9) exceptions to public meetings set forth in NJSA 104-12(b) are listed below andnext to each exception is a box within which the number of issues to be privately discussed that fall withinthat exception shall be written and after each exception is a space where additional information that willdisclose as much information about the discussion as possible without undermining the purpose of theexception shall be written
ldquo(1) Any matter which by express provision of Federal law State statute or rule of courtshall be rendered confidential or excluded from public discussionrdquo The legal citation to theprovision(s) at issue is__________________________ and the nature of the matter described asspecifically as possible without undermining the need for confidentiality is _______________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(2) Any matter in which the release of information would impair a right to receive fundsfrom the federal governmentrdquo The nature of the matter described as specifically as possiblewithout undermining the need for confidentiality is _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(3) Any material the disclosure of which constitutes an unwarranted invasion of individualprivacy such as any records data reports recommendations or other personal material ofany educational training social service medical health custodial child protectionrehabilitation legal defense welfare housing relocation insurance and similar program orinstitution operated by a public body pertaining to any specific individual admitted to orserved by such institution or program including but not limited to information relative tothe individuals personal and family circumstances and any material pertaining toadmission discharge treatment progress or condition of any individual unless theindividual concerned (or in the case of a minor or incompetent his guardian) shall requestin writing that the same be disclosed publiclyrdquo The nature of the matter described asspecifically as possible without undermining the need for confidentiality is______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(4) Any collective bargaining agreement or the terms and conditions of which are proposedfor inclusion in any collective bargaining agreement including the negotiation of terms andconditions with employees or representatives of employees of the public bodyrdquo The collectivebargaining contract(s) discussed are between the Board and ____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Exhibit Page 1Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 40 of 77
ldquo(5) Any matter involving the purchase lease or acquisition of real property with publicfunds the setting of bank rates or investment of public funds where it could adversely affectthe public interest if discussion of such matters were disclosedrdquo The nature of the matterdescribed as specifically as possible without undermining the need for confidentiality is____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(6) Any tactics and techniques utilized in protecting the safety and property of the publicprovided that their disclosure could impair such protection Any investigations of violationsor possible violations of the lawrdquo The nature of the matter described as specifically as possiblewithout undermining the need for confidentiality is ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(7) Any pending or anticipated litigation or contract negotiation in which the public body isor may become a party Any matters falling within the attorney-client privilege to the extentthat confidentiality is required in order for the attorney to exercise his ethicalduties as a lawyerrdquo The parties to and docket numbers of each item of litigation andor theparties to each contract discussed are __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ andnature of the discussion described as specifically as possible without undermining the need forconfidentiality is ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(8) Any matter involving the employment appointment termination of employment termsand conditions of employment evaluation of the performance promotion or disciplining ofany specific prospective public officer or employee or current public officer or employeeemployed or appointed by the public body unless all individual employees or appointees whoserights could be adversely affected request in writing that such matter or matters be discussed ata public meetingrdquo Subject to the balancing of the publicrsquos interest and the employeersquos privacyrights under South Jersey Publishing Co v New Jersey Expressway Authority 124 NJ 478 theemployee(s) and nature of the discussion described as specifically as possible withoutundermining the need for confidentiality are _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(9) Any deliberation of a public body occurring after a public hearing that may result in theimposition of a specific civil penalty upon the responding party or the suspension or loss of alicense or permit belonging to the responding party as a result of an act of omission forwhich the responding party bears responsibilityrdquo The nature of the matter described asspecifically as possible without undermining the need for confidentiality is______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
WHEREAS the length of the Executive Session is estimated to be ________ minutes after which the publicmeeting of the Board shall (circle one) reconvene and immediately adjourn or reconvene and proceed withbusiness
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Runnemede Board of Education will go into ExecutiveSession for only the above stated reasons
Exhibit Page 2Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 41 of 77
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board hereby declares that its discussion of the aforementionedsubject(s) will be made public at a time when the publicrsquos interest in disclosure is greater than any privacy orgovernmental interest being protected from disclosure For each of the above items the estimated date bywhich such disclosure can be made andor the occurrence that needs to take place before disclosure can bemade are listed below (attach separate sheet if necessary)
Subject of Discussion Estimated Date Necessary Occurrence
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Clerk at the present public meeting shall read aloud enough ofthis resolution so that members of the public in attendance can understand as precisely as possible thenature of the matters that will privately discussed
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Clerk on the next business day following this meeting shallfurnish a copy of this resolution to any member of the public who requests one at the fees allowed byNJSA 471A-1 et seq
_________________________________Board President
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS ATRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTIONAPPROVED BY THE RUNNEMEDE BOARD OF EDUCATION AT ITSPUBLIC MEETING HELD ON ______________________20___
_______________________________________Board Secretary
Exhibit Page 3Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 42 of 77
Exhibit Page 4Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 43 of 77
Exhibit Page 5Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 44 of 77
Exhibit Page 6Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 45 of 77
Exhibit Page 7Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 46 of 77
Exhibit Page 8Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 47 of 77
Exhibit Page 9Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 48 of 77
Subject Records RequestFrom John Paff ltpaffpoboxcomgtDate Sat 07 May 2011 161444 -0400To vcarmodyrunnemedeschoolsorgCC psternasgllawcom
Ms Carmody
Please accept this e-mail as my request for government records inaccordance with the Open Public Records Act (OPRA) and the commonlaw right of access Please respond and send all responsivedocuments to me via e-mail at paffpoboxcom If e-mail is notpossible please fax responses and responsive records to me at908-325-0129 Also I would appreciate it if you wouldacknowledge your receipt of this e-mail
Background
In response to a records request I recently received redactedexecutive session minutes for the following dates July 28 2010(first session) August 26 2010 February 2 2011 February 232011 (two sessions) and March 2 2011 Although Mr Stern providedme with a sheet entitled Documents Exempt From OPRA request thatpurports to explain these redactions I am still unclear as to whythe matter was redacted and whether it was lawfully redacted
First I dont understand references such as NJSA 471A-11(12)(c) The version of OPRA that I have (plus every other oneIve seen) does not have internal numbers within NJSA471A-11 Am I correct that NJSA 471A-11(12)(c) isintended to refer to the exemption for records in connection withcollective negotiations including documents and statements ofstrategy or negotiating position and that NJSA 471A-11(7)is intended to refer to any record within the attorney-clientprivilege This paragraph shall not be construed as exempting fromaccess attorney or consultant bills or invoices except that suchbills or invoices may be redacted to remove any informationprotected by the attorney-client privilege Please advise
Second even if I correctly corresponded the claimed exemptions tothe OPRA statute I have no way of knowing whether the mattersredacted are actually exempt from access When a custodiansuppresses any portion of any requested record NJSA471A-5(g) requires him or her to state the ldquospecific basisrdquo foreach suppressed element Beyond stating the ldquospecific basisrdquo foreach suppressed element he or she is required to ldquoproduce
Records Request
1 of 2 622011 810 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 49 of 77
specific reliable evidence sufficient to meet a statutorilyrecognized basis for confidentialityrdquo Courier News v HunterdonCounty Prosecutorrsquos Office 358 NJ Super 373 382-83 (App Div2003) Further he or she must explain each suppression in amanner that ldquowill enable other parties to assess the applicabilityof the privilege or protectionrdquo Paff v New Jersey Department ofLabor Board of Review 379 NJ Super 346 354-55 (2005)(quoting R 410-2(e))
Records requested
Runnemede Board of Education minutes for the following dates July28 2010 (728 pm session only) August 26 2010 February 22011 February 23 2011 (both sessions) and March 2 2011 Iwould like these minutes redacted as narrowly as possible if atall For each redaction I request a written explanation thatmeets the requirements of the case law cited above
cc Phil Stern
Records Request
2 of 2 622011 810 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 50 of 77
Subject Re Fwd Runnemede Board of Education Open PublicMeetings ActFrom John Paff ltpaffpoboxcomgtDate Mon 09 May 2011 134726 -0400To Nancy Ward ltnwardrunnemedeschoolsorggt
Thank you
On 592011 116 PM Nancy Ward wrote
Mr Paff
The Board has named me Custodian of Records Please direct allfuturecommunication to me The May 10 2011 meeting is theRe-organization ofthe Runnemede Board of Education The agenda is set and is verycomprehensive I intend to defer the letter and any discussionregardingits content to the next regular meeting the date of which willbe setat the re-organization tomorrow night In keeping with thedistrictsmeeting pattern that will be May 25 2011
Nancy BWard EdD
Superintendent of Schools
-----Original Message-----From John PaffSent 572011 42300 PMTo nwardrunnemedeschoolsorgCc vcarmodyrunnemedeschoolsorg psternasgllawcomSubject Fwd Runnemede Board of Education Open Public MeetingsAct
Here is another e-mail in case my original one should have beendirected to Ms Ward and not Ms Carmody
JP
-------- Original Message --------Subject Runnemede Board of Education Open Public Meetings ActDate Sat 07 May 2011 152319 -0400From John Paff
Re Fwd Runnemede Board of Education Open Public Meetings Act
1 of 2 622011 811 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 51 of 77
Reply-To paffpoboxcomTo vcarmodyrunnemedeschoolsorg psternasgllawcom
Ms Carmody and Mr Stern
Attached is a letter that I would like the Board to consider atits May10 2011 meeting Would you please a) acknowledge receipt of theletterand b) distribute it to all the Board members
Note that the last paragraph of the letter indicates that I willfilesuit against the Board if the issues in the letter arentaddressedSo if the Boards agenda for the May 10th meeting is so tightthat myletter cannot be accommodated please advise me of such andprovide ameeting date where my letter will be addressed so that I knowthat I amnot being ignored
Thank you
John Paff ChairmanNew Jersey Libertarian PartysOpen Government Advocacy Project
Re Fwd Runnemede Board of Education Open Public Meetings Act
2 of 2 622011 811 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 52 of 77
Subject OPRA RequestFrom Philip Stern ltpsternasgllawcomgtDate Fri 20 May 2011 161015 -0500To paffpoboxcom ltpaffpoboxcomgtCC Nancy Ward ltnwardrunnemedeschoolsorggt
Mr Paff please find attached to this email a response to your request forbusiness records Please note that in providing you with the attachedrecords the Runnemede Borough Board of Education waives no rightsregarding the attorney-client privilege Do not hesitate to call me if youhave any questions Phil Stern
Philip E SternAdams Stern Gutierrez amp Lattiboudere LLCThe Legal Center1037 Raymond Blvd Suite 710Newark New Jersey 07102(973) 735-2742 (office telephone)(201) 914-2415 (cellular telephone)(973) 735-2743 (office telefax)
May 20 Paff responsepdf
Content-DescriptionMay 20 Paffresponsepdf
Content-Type applicationpdf
Content-Encoding base64
OPRA Request
1 of 1 622011 815 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 53 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 54 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 55 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 56 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 57 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 58 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 59 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 60 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 61 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 62 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 63 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 64 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 65 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 66 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 67 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 68 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 69 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 70 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 71 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 72 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 73 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 74 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 75 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 76 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 77 of 77
- Civil Complaint
- Exhibits
-
Speck works with vendors going over bids and quotes and also does minor repairs thatno longer have to be paid for piecemeal Ward said the position is staying in the 2011-2012 budget adopted preliminarily on Wednesday
Hes the guy whos here at 4 am making sure weve got snow plows when we needthem Ward said Hes dirty and sweaty -- and hes excellent
Ward said the budget sent to the county includes a $78 annual tax increase for theowner of a home assessed at the $97800 borough average but does not cut staff orprograms
Kurth hopes to tweak the budget and lower the tax hike before it is introduced to thepublic on March 23 But she agreed the maintenance supervisor will stay
That was an investment on the part of the school district Kurth said
Reach Barbara S Rothschild at (856) 486-2416 or barothschildcamdengannettcom
--Comments
User Imageamonkeycoulddoit wroteThe mayor cant hear you because she doesnt even know how to turn on a computerNot that it was a requirement that the mayor should know how to use one I think theonly requirement is that they have a pulse And she does but barely372011 12406 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imageamonkeycoulddoit wroteTo sickofpolsnj it does seem that snoopysam has some inside information And whenyou say hows that mayors race looking I hope that you dont mean that someone fromthe disfunctional school board is going to run for mayor or council or some other electedposition considering the mess that they made on the school board372011 11832 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imageamonkeycoulddoit wroteIf the school board president had listened to staff when the hostil work enviroment issuestarted then she might not be in this pickle She should have spent the money on thelegal fees because if everything is true about the hostile enviroment then they wouldhave won the lawsuit hands down and not had to pay out anything and gotten their legalfees back Another example of elected officials not capable of doing the job they are inLets hope that some people come out of the woodwork to run for school board peoplewho care about the kids and the taxpayers372011 11309 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imageamonkeycoulddoit wrote
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 28 of 77
The school boad is not as inept as the mayor and council You dont have to be a collegegraduate or or even be able to read or write to get an elected position in runnemedeThe 2 new council members got elected because the are involved in the union andeveryone who supports the union came out to vote And the new mayor must have a lotof friends But now after the few months they have been in office it is clear to see thatthey are not able to handle the job Mayor14 is right that the people of Runnemedevoted because they thought they would get something in return for their vote but itlooks like they were wrong In the upcoming elections for school board and council votefor the person who will do the best job whether you like them or not Dont just vote forsomeone because you are told to372011 10214 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagethemayor14 wrotei am so glad this article was written and it clearly points out how inept the runnemedeboard of education actually is the board of education is not elected based on businessand education talent the elections are nothing more than a popularity contest i dontknow how other towns operate but runnemede boro is a total joke when it come toelections be it school board or general elections i wish everyone would get their headsout of their A$$ and truly investigate the school board canidates that are running forelection VOTE WITH YOUR HEAD NOT WITH YOUR HEART362011 91350 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagesavetheschools wroteSeveral people are running for the board for four open seats I signed a petition todayfor a new woman running Members are not paid If you live in Runnemede shopstewardyou have until Tuesday to get a petition submitted I asked and found out there is only 5people on average at the BOE meetings every month in Runnemede I hope more peoplestart to go I plan on it myself And we all need to go every month not just when weread negative press about our schools That is the only way we would all stay informedand not rely on the young man submitting OPRA requests Our town has always beenabout the kids and it needs to get back that way362011 80936 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser ImageShopsteward wroteWhy did it take one young man sending in OPRA requests to bring all this to lightWhy are you relying upon him to get to the bottom of it You say The other members(except for the one who was just arrested and resigned) are good people and didnothing wrong to the district and that might be true except for the fact that theyallowed that incredible salary and benefits to be given out and even though all kinds ofrumors were flying around it took an outsider with OPRA requests to bring this ghastlypimple to a head Sounds more like none of them are doing their jobs and should be outof office and off the payroll They should all just resign They arent doing the job thatwas assigned to them362011 32559 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Image
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 29 of 77
Shopsteward wroteA crime was committed here It began with a violation of the Publics trust by the peoplewho allowed this contract to be signed in the first place What a jokeHow many moreof these jobs are hidden in the budgets of our Schools There needs to be a thouroughcleaning of all thses tyeps of employees everywhere At the State County Municipaland Scool board level and the appointed Authorities too Everyone screams about theUnions but whenever you hear of some great big abuse it turns out the person wasnteven in the UnionClean up this mess first Mr Christie before yougo after the little guys It will save us all a lot more money362011 101606 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser ImageShopsteward wroteI still dont get itHow is a part time24 hr a week job worth so much This is aprime example of the waste that is giving the public workers a bad nameThe onlyproblem is it isnt some Union personIts management and its the same all over This isjust the tip of the iceberg they scream about the Unions but the real waste is in jobs likethis oneNo way this job or the thousands of others like it should be paid so well99465 PLUS BENEFITS incrediblethere should be a lawandthe person gets a pension based on that bloated salarytooThere should be other people losing their jobs not for theseperation aggreement but for letting this evenhappen352011 101125 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagethesplits wroteI guess this is Runnemedes version of a shared service352011 73450 PM
User Imagethesplits wroteLooks like its the same old Runnemede and I thought we voted for change Mayor352011 73202 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagesavetheschools wroteFrom what I understand and I live in town the board went into this separationagreement because the BA would have had a potential lawsuit and it would have costthe school district and tax payers a ton of money Much more than they are spendingnow And yes it is one school board member who was apparently corrupt Just one Theyoung man who was mentioned in the article has been OPRA requesting items and willget to the bottom of this situation with the former BA and the certain board memberBut that is just one person The other members (except for the one who was justarrested and resigned) are good people and did nothing wrong to the district Thisformer BA and her friend who was hired as the maint supervisor have been a hot topicfor a few years Ask the employees they were awful and needed to go It is awful thatthis money was not spent on our children It was a trainwreck from the beginning and ifI recall correctly when the hiring took place only one of the members voted no and that
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 30 of 77
was the local high school teacher metioned in another post Runnemede schools arefantastic and maybe the new people running for election will get some answers andmake some changes And maybe the BOE member who was mentioned by employees asbeing the reason why there could be a possible lawsuit should just resign I understandadmin make good money but they also need to be accountable for their actions and ifthe BA made a hostile environment and was supported by one BOE member both shouldbe gonenot just the BA352011 33207 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagecookmom wroteWhere is Gov Christies veto power352011 30321 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagecookmom wroteThis all happened with a local police officer and a FOP member and local high schoolteacher and member of the NJEA on the board The Runnemede Board is looking alotlike the DRPA and was this group picked by the new Mayor352011 30042 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagesickofpolsnj wroteThe real truth is the Board of Education member and Brazelton and the unethicalsituation that THEY created The questionable contracts and underhanded deals There isa certain Board Member that hopes that this ends here well it doesnt There is not aTeacher or employee in Runnemede Schools that would defend Brazelton same goes forSomerdale And many are willing to bring out MANY of the things that Brazelton did todestroy the district The ENTIRE Runnemede School Community is thrilled that Brazeltonis gone Snoopysam is clearly one of two people Kelly or the Board Member shouldwe name names Hows that Mayors race looking352011 114254 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser ImageShopsteward wrote$99465 plus benefits How much does she pay for her share of those benefitsor are they free to her Her replacement only works 24 hours a week are we being toldthat she got that much money for a part time job What is the matter with theidiots that hired her to begin withNo one should get that kind of money for a part timeThat is an awful lot of money for that kind of job We should not be surprised at all Thiskind of thing is everywhere in Camden CountyIts the NORMAL way of doingbusiness352011 113922 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagelookfar111 wroteYep same old story hire someone for $98000 when 10 equally qualified people woulddo it for 60k with a 20 year top out at 75 k Then a sweetheart adios gift And the cherry
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 31 of 77
on top Another tax increase for the people God I hate what the democrat machinehave done to this once great state352011 111649 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser ImageSnoopysam wrotesickofpolsnj you must be on ot those employees that Brazelton held accountable forHER actions You are right there is so much more to this story and when the real truthscome out there will be some emplopyeesadministratorsboard members hanging theirheads in shame Talk about wasting taxpayer dollars take a look at some of the lazyincompetent employees that Brazelton had to deal withand their HUGE mistakes thathad to be corrected which cost the taxpayers thousands upon thousands of dollars352011 94250 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagesickofpolsnj wroteYou are exactly correct A teacher would never get a sweatheart deal like this I wonderwhich Board Member it was that was mentioned in that letter Did you read the blog thatthis all came out on it has way more details than this articlehttpdansviewrunnemedewordpresscom352011 92934 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagesickofpolsnj wroteOnly thing is Runnemede never had these issues Somerdale had the same EXACT issueswith Brazelton Administrators arent allowed to comment however talk to the teachersand employees off record they will tell you all about Kelly352011 92726 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagesickofpolsnj wroteThere is so much more to this story I hope the CP will run a follow up 1 Look into therealtionship and hiring surrounding Doug the maintenance supervisor 2 Check intoBrazeltons past employment Somerdale Schools 3 Brazelton is rumored to be hired atthe completion of the settlement in Deptford 4 Look into unethical practices between aBoard Member and Brazelton 5 And what about the other Board member that wasrecently charged with a serious crime352011 92315 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imageicallbullschit wroteOnce again the government tries to pin their mistakes on an individual when they screwup royally What the paper fails to report is the other side Maybe years and years ofmismanagement and patronage were uncovered and it became a hostile environmentwhen people got called on their actions and the same old routine was stopped Maybethe school board realized it would be cheaper to pay one than to pay many for theirmistakes Maybe the school board was willing to pay in order to keep their dirty littlesecrets covered up Maybe the resident should look deeper into the actions of the schoolboard and the rest of the administration Maybe I am wrong but it seems that the board
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 32 of 77
got called on some issues and now they are attacking one individual to cover theirtracks They seem to be acting like the GREAT WIZARD OF OZ Pay no attention to theidiots behind the curtain we are the all powerful and all knowing school board Pull backthe curtain people because there are people behind there that are faking their waythrough and going to wind up costing the district millions Just saying352011 85642 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagecookmom wroteSchool board President Colleen Kurth said it was much easier to go with a separationagreement than pay more legal fees She compared paying Brazelton to paying ateacher out sick while a substitute fills in The job just has to go on Kurth said I amconfused A teacher out SICK is NOT the same as a HOSTILE work enviorment How cana medical condition be compared to a person being accused of a hostile workenviorment A teacher would be REQUIRED to use their sick days~ since this is beingcompared to an illness ~was Brazelton REQUIRED to give up her sickvacation pay orwas that part of the dealWas she also paid for those days Wouldnt we all love to becollecting a salary from two towns As now she is being paid by Runnemde AND acurrent SCHOOL district where she is currently employed THIS is the waste in ourSchool districts352011 83552 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imageneocon wroteShe is part of the Protected Classes All you need to know is that she is better thanyou so just keep moveing along Nothing to see here352011 81912 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report Abuse
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 33 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 34 of 77
New Jersey Libertarian PartyOpen Government Advocacy Project
John Paff Chairman
PO Box 5424
Somerset NJ 08875-5424
Phone 732-873-1251 - Fax 908-325-0129
Email lpsmcpoboxcom
May 7 2011
Hon Colleen Kurth President and members of the
Runnemede Board of Education
505 W Third Ave
Runnemede NJ 08078 (via e-mail to vcarmodyrunnemedeschoolsorg )
Dear President Kurth and Board members
I write both individually and on behalf the New Jersey Libertarian Partys Open
Government Advocacy Project to comment on 1) the manner in which the Board of Education
goes into nonpublic (ie executive or closed) session and 2) the level of detail contained within
the Boardrsquos executive session minutes
Issue 1 Executive Session resolutions
As you are aware the Senator Byron M Baer Open Public Meetings Act requires public
bodies such as the Runnemede Board of Education to publicly pass a resolution before
excluding the public from a meeting The statute that requires the resolution states
NJSA 104-13mdashClosed meetings resolution to conduct
No public body shall exclude the public from any meeting to discuss any
matter described in subsection 7 b (104-12) until the public body shall
first adopt a resolution at a meeting to which the public shall be admitted
a Stating the general nature of the subject to be discussed and
b Stating as precisely as possible the time when and the circumstances
under which the discussion conducted in closed session of the public body
can be disclosed to the public
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 35 of 77
2
By way of a recent records request I received resolutions which purport to authorize
executive sessions intended to be held by the Board of Education on July 28 2010 (2 sessions)
August 20 2010 February 2 1011 February 23 2011 (2 sessions) and March 2 2011 Those
resolutions which are virtually identical to each other state
Executive Session to discuss student matters personnel contractual and
legal matters [time and a statement as to whether action will be
taken]
[identity of maker of motion etc]
Resolved that pursuant to Section 8 of the Public Meetings Act the public
shall be excluded from that portion of the meeting involving the discussion
of personnel legal and contractual matters Further resolved that
discussion of such subject matters discussed in Executive Session can be
disclosed to public upon official action if any at the conclusion of the
executive session or at a public session at some later date
I dont think that this form of resolution satisfies NJSA 104-13 because it gives the
public no real sense of what is being privately discussed1 To paraphrase the highest court of of
another state a body which only announces ldquolegal mattersrdquo or ldquopersonnel negotiationsrdquo for
going into executive session has said nothing It might has well have stated to the audience
ldquoLadies and gentlemen we are going into executive sessionrdquo and stopped there Hinds County
Board of Supervisors v Common Cause of Mississippi 551 So2d 107 114 (MS 1989)
Of course there can be no dispute that the Board of Education often has legitimate
reasons to meet in nonpublic session Among these reasons is the need to prevent the adverse
parties in litigation or contract negotiations from gaining an unfair advantage and to allow
members of the governing body to debate and deliberate personnel matters without public
scrutiny or participation But the need to discuss matters privately should not prevent the
public from being informed as precisely as possible of the topics that are being privately
discussed
For example suppose that Runnemede Board is being sued by a Mr Jones who was
injured after he slipped and fell on what he claims to be negligently maintained school
property Since the lawsuit is already a public record there is no public purpose served by
vaguely describing a private discussion of it as ldquostudent matters personnel contractual and
legal mattersrdquo Rather the resolution should at the very least describe the private discussion as
1 In January 2007 when I most recently litigated this issue Middlesex County Superior Court Judge Alexander P
Waugh issued a written decision in which he agreed with other court decisions that closed session resolutions
should contain as much information as is consistent with full public knowledge without doing any harm to the
public interest Judge Waughs decision and other case documents are on the Web at
httpogtfarchiveorgOGTFMonroeBOEWebreadypdf
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 36 of 77
3
ldquoDiscussion of slip and fall negligence suit Jones v Runnemede Board Docket No CAM-L-
012345-11rdquo This way the public has a very good sense of what the Boardrsquos private discussion is
about while the ability of the Board to develop its lawsuit strategy is not undermined
Using the same example suppose that Jonesrsquo attorney sent the Boardrsquos attorney an offer
to fully settle the lawsuit upon the Boardrsquos payment of $20000 While the Board would
obviously need to discuss how to respond to the offer in private lest Jones or his attorney
would be in the audience witnessing the discussion there is no reason why the public cannot be
informed in the NJSA 104-13 resolution that the Board will meet in private to discuss ldquoa
settlement offer received from the Plaintiff in the slip and fall negligence suit known as Jones v
Runnemede Board Docket No CAM-L-012345-11 in which the Plaintiff offers to settle the suit
in exchange for the Board paying him $20000rdquo While it may initially seem that this would
provide ldquotoo muchrdquo information to the public this concern disappears once it is realized that
the sole purpose of the exception2 that allows litigation matters to be discussed in private is to
keep the adverse party to the litigation in the dark regarding the Boardrsquos position3 Since in this
example the adverse party (ie Jones) already knows that he offered to settle the lawsuit for
$20000 there is no legitimate reason why the public should not also know of the tendered
settlement offer
As another example suppose that a personnel matter such as whether or not a Mrs
Smith a public works employee should be disciplined because of repeatedly arriving late to
work is to be discussed in closed session In such a case the amount of detail set forth in the
NJSA 104-13 resolution should correspond to the amount of detail that the Board and its
attorney predict will be publicly disclosed in the closed meetingrsquos minutes when those minutes
are made public
The standard that the Board is to use when determining how much information about a
personnel matter is to be disclosed in the closed sessionrsquos minutes is set forth in South Jersey
Publishing Company Inc v New Jersey Expressway Authority 124 NJ 478 (1991) That
standard is that a) the public needs information if it is properly fulfill its role of evaluating the
wisdom of governmental action or a decision not to act b) that New Jerseys strong public
policy requires that a public bodyrsquos actions and decisions to not act be disclosed in the bodys
closed meeting minutes along with sufficient facts and information to permit the public to
understand and appraise the reasonableness of the bodys determination and c) to the extent a
cognizable privacy interest may be compromised by the required disclosure the extent of
disclosure may be modified through redactions of the minutes provided the public interest in
disclosure is not subverted
2 NJSA104-12(b)(7) is to prevent adverse parties to litigation and contracts from learning the details of the
public bodyrsquos negotiation tactics and litigation strategy3 See the discussion in Paff v Washington Township Docket No MER-L-2205-07 and Nevin v Asbury Park City
Board 2005 WL 2847974 (App Div November 1 2005) which are on-line at
httpogtfarchiveorgOGTFWashingtonpdf (Nevin begins at page 44 of the PDF file at the link)
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 37 of 77
4
Thus regardless of whether the Board disciplines Ms Smith or chooses to not impose
discipline due to her lateness the outcome should be recorded in the closed meeting minutes
The question of whether that entry in the minutes should be redacted before the minutes are
made public requires a balancing of Ms Smithrsquos interest in keeping the disciplinary matter
private against the publicrsquos interest in effectively monitoring the Board If the Board with
counselrsquos advice determines after balancing these interests that the outcome will be published
unredacted in the closed sessionrsquos minutes (ie if the minutes will disclose to the public eg that
ldquoMs Smith was suspended for three days on account of her habitual latenessrdquo) then the exact
nature of the matter (ie that ldquothe Board will discuss disciplining Ms Smith for excessive
latenessrdquo) should be set forth in the closed meetingrsquos NJSA 104-13 resolution Inversely if the
Board determines that Ms Smithrsquos privacy interest exceeds the publicrsquos right to know then less
information (eg ldquothe Board will discuss disciplining an employee for excessive latenessrdquo)
should be set forth in the closed meetingrsquos NJSA 104-13 resolution
In other words if the officer or employee being discussed doesnt have a privacy interest
sufficient to withstand a citizens request for the executive session minutes why should not the
public know the topic of the executive session prior to it occurring
Irsquove attached as Exhibit pages 1 -3 is a model resolution that I would like the Board to
use in the future
Issue 2 Executive Session minutes
Attached as Exhibit Page 4 as an example are the Boardrsquos July 28 2010 executive session
minutes It is troubling that a meeting that lasted over an hour is being summed up in a single
sentence ldquoMr Phil Stern addressed the Board of Education about personnel issuesrdquo These
minutes are not ldquoreasonably comprehensiblerdquo as required by NJSA 104-14
The purpose of closed meeting minutes is not merely to inform the public of whatoccurred during the private session but also to create a record for the Board membersthemselves A Board member who is newly elected in 2012 should be able by referringsolely to the minutes to figure out what issues the Board addressed during any previouslyheld closed meeting This hypothetical Board member after reading the July 28 2010closed minutes could not possibly figure out which employees or officials Mr Stern wastalking about
Better practice would be to record closed minutes that are much morecomprehensive but to redact that material that must be shielded from public view Forexample the minutes could have said
Mr Stern addressed the Board of Education about the habitualtardiness of 2nd grade teacher Mary Doe and her propensity to eatlibrary paste and scream hysterically during fire drills Herecommended that she be sent for psychiatric evaluation
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 38 of 77
5
Of course if a member of the public requested these hypothetical minutes the Boardmay need to redact them in order to protect privacy interests The point however is thatregardless of whether unredacted closed meeting minutes are ever released to the publicthey should contain sufficient details so that the Board members themselves can monthsor years later know what was discussed
Attached as Exhibit pages 5 ndash 9 is an order recently entered in Schmidt et al v City of
Gloucester City et al Docket No CAM-L-1287-11 As you can see paraA(3) supports my position
that the Boardrsquos minutes are not ldquoreasonably comprehensiblerdquo as required by law
Conclusion
Since some public bodies do not take my requests for Meetings Act compliance seriously
I regret having to inform the Board that I will sue for declaratory and injunctive relief in
accordance with NJSA 104-16 unless I receive assurances from the Boardmdashwithin a few days
after its May 10 2011 meetingmdashthat it will work in good faith to improve the amount of
information in both its closed session resolutions and minutes If the Boardrsquos agenda is already
set for the May 10 2011 meeting please at least acknowledge this letter and let me know the
date of the meeting at which it will be considered
Thank you very much for your attention to this matter I look forward to hearing from
you
Sincerely
John Paff
cc Philip E Stern Esq w enc (via e-mail to psternasgllawcom )
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 39 of 77
RUNNEMEDE BOARD OF EDUCATIONRESOLUTION NO ___________
AUTHORIZING EXECUTIVE SESSION
WHEREAS while the Sen Byron M Baer Open Public Meetings Act (NJSA 104-6 et seq) requires allmeetings of the Runnemede Board of Education to be held in public NJSA 104-12(b) sets forth nine (9)types of matters that may lawfully be discussed in ldquoExecutive Sessionrdquo ie without the public beingpermitted to attend and
WHEREAS the Runnemede Board of Education has determined that _____ (insert number) issues arepermitted by NJSA 104-12(b) to be discussed without the public in attendance shall be discussed duringan Executive Session to be held on _________________________ 20____ at _______ PM and
WHEREAS the nine (9) exceptions to public meetings set forth in NJSA 104-12(b) are listed below andnext to each exception is a box within which the number of issues to be privately discussed that fall withinthat exception shall be written and after each exception is a space where additional information that willdisclose as much information about the discussion as possible without undermining the purpose of theexception shall be written
ldquo(1) Any matter which by express provision of Federal law State statute or rule of courtshall be rendered confidential or excluded from public discussionrdquo The legal citation to theprovision(s) at issue is__________________________ and the nature of the matter described asspecifically as possible without undermining the need for confidentiality is _______________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(2) Any matter in which the release of information would impair a right to receive fundsfrom the federal governmentrdquo The nature of the matter described as specifically as possiblewithout undermining the need for confidentiality is _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(3) Any material the disclosure of which constitutes an unwarranted invasion of individualprivacy such as any records data reports recommendations or other personal material ofany educational training social service medical health custodial child protectionrehabilitation legal defense welfare housing relocation insurance and similar program orinstitution operated by a public body pertaining to any specific individual admitted to orserved by such institution or program including but not limited to information relative tothe individuals personal and family circumstances and any material pertaining toadmission discharge treatment progress or condition of any individual unless theindividual concerned (or in the case of a minor or incompetent his guardian) shall requestin writing that the same be disclosed publiclyrdquo The nature of the matter described asspecifically as possible without undermining the need for confidentiality is______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(4) Any collective bargaining agreement or the terms and conditions of which are proposedfor inclusion in any collective bargaining agreement including the negotiation of terms andconditions with employees or representatives of employees of the public bodyrdquo The collectivebargaining contract(s) discussed are between the Board and ____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Exhibit Page 1Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 40 of 77
ldquo(5) Any matter involving the purchase lease or acquisition of real property with publicfunds the setting of bank rates or investment of public funds where it could adversely affectthe public interest if discussion of such matters were disclosedrdquo The nature of the matterdescribed as specifically as possible without undermining the need for confidentiality is____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(6) Any tactics and techniques utilized in protecting the safety and property of the publicprovided that their disclosure could impair such protection Any investigations of violationsor possible violations of the lawrdquo The nature of the matter described as specifically as possiblewithout undermining the need for confidentiality is ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(7) Any pending or anticipated litigation or contract negotiation in which the public body isor may become a party Any matters falling within the attorney-client privilege to the extentthat confidentiality is required in order for the attorney to exercise his ethicalduties as a lawyerrdquo The parties to and docket numbers of each item of litigation andor theparties to each contract discussed are __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ andnature of the discussion described as specifically as possible without undermining the need forconfidentiality is ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(8) Any matter involving the employment appointment termination of employment termsand conditions of employment evaluation of the performance promotion or disciplining ofany specific prospective public officer or employee or current public officer or employeeemployed or appointed by the public body unless all individual employees or appointees whoserights could be adversely affected request in writing that such matter or matters be discussed ata public meetingrdquo Subject to the balancing of the publicrsquos interest and the employeersquos privacyrights under South Jersey Publishing Co v New Jersey Expressway Authority 124 NJ 478 theemployee(s) and nature of the discussion described as specifically as possible withoutundermining the need for confidentiality are _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(9) Any deliberation of a public body occurring after a public hearing that may result in theimposition of a specific civil penalty upon the responding party or the suspension or loss of alicense or permit belonging to the responding party as a result of an act of omission forwhich the responding party bears responsibilityrdquo The nature of the matter described asspecifically as possible without undermining the need for confidentiality is______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
WHEREAS the length of the Executive Session is estimated to be ________ minutes after which the publicmeeting of the Board shall (circle one) reconvene and immediately adjourn or reconvene and proceed withbusiness
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Runnemede Board of Education will go into ExecutiveSession for only the above stated reasons
Exhibit Page 2Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 41 of 77
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board hereby declares that its discussion of the aforementionedsubject(s) will be made public at a time when the publicrsquos interest in disclosure is greater than any privacy orgovernmental interest being protected from disclosure For each of the above items the estimated date bywhich such disclosure can be made andor the occurrence that needs to take place before disclosure can bemade are listed below (attach separate sheet if necessary)
Subject of Discussion Estimated Date Necessary Occurrence
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Clerk at the present public meeting shall read aloud enough ofthis resolution so that members of the public in attendance can understand as precisely as possible thenature of the matters that will privately discussed
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Clerk on the next business day following this meeting shallfurnish a copy of this resolution to any member of the public who requests one at the fees allowed byNJSA 471A-1 et seq
_________________________________Board President
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS ATRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTIONAPPROVED BY THE RUNNEMEDE BOARD OF EDUCATION AT ITSPUBLIC MEETING HELD ON ______________________20___
_______________________________________Board Secretary
Exhibit Page 3Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 42 of 77
Exhibit Page 4Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 43 of 77
Exhibit Page 5Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 44 of 77
Exhibit Page 6Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 45 of 77
Exhibit Page 7Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 46 of 77
Exhibit Page 8Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 47 of 77
Exhibit Page 9Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 48 of 77
Subject Records RequestFrom John Paff ltpaffpoboxcomgtDate Sat 07 May 2011 161444 -0400To vcarmodyrunnemedeschoolsorgCC psternasgllawcom
Ms Carmody
Please accept this e-mail as my request for government records inaccordance with the Open Public Records Act (OPRA) and the commonlaw right of access Please respond and send all responsivedocuments to me via e-mail at paffpoboxcom If e-mail is notpossible please fax responses and responsive records to me at908-325-0129 Also I would appreciate it if you wouldacknowledge your receipt of this e-mail
Background
In response to a records request I recently received redactedexecutive session minutes for the following dates July 28 2010(first session) August 26 2010 February 2 2011 February 232011 (two sessions) and March 2 2011 Although Mr Stern providedme with a sheet entitled Documents Exempt From OPRA request thatpurports to explain these redactions I am still unclear as to whythe matter was redacted and whether it was lawfully redacted
First I dont understand references such as NJSA 471A-11(12)(c) The version of OPRA that I have (plus every other oneIve seen) does not have internal numbers within NJSA471A-11 Am I correct that NJSA 471A-11(12)(c) isintended to refer to the exemption for records in connection withcollective negotiations including documents and statements ofstrategy or negotiating position and that NJSA 471A-11(7)is intended to refer to any record within the attorney-clientprivilege This paragraph shall not be construed as exempting fromaccess attorney or consultant bills or invoices except that suchbills or invoices may be redacted to remove any informationprotected by the attorney-client privilege Please advise
Second even if I correctly corresponded the claimed exemptions tothe OPRA statute I have no way of knowing whether the mattersredacted are actually exempt from access When a custodiansuppresses any portion of any requested record NJSA471A-5(g) requires him or her to state the ldquospecific basisrdquo foreach suppressed element Beyond stating the ldquospecific basisrdquo foreach suppressed element he or she is required to ldquoproduce
Records Request
1 of 2 622011 810 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 49 of 77
specific reliable evidence sufficient to meet a statutorilyrecognized basis for confidentialityrdquo Courier News v HunterdonCounty Prosecutorrsquos Office 358 NJ Super 373 382-83 (App Div2003) Further he or she must explain each suppression in amanner that ldquowill enable other parties to assess the applicabilityof the privilege or protectionrdquo Paff v New Jersey Department ofLabor Board of Review 379 NJ Super 346 354-55 (2005)(quoting R 410-2(e))
Records requested
Runnemede Board of Education minutes for the following dates July28 2010 (728 pm session only) August 26 2010 February 22011 February 23 2011 (both sessions) and March 2 2011 Iwould like these minutes redacted as narrowly as possible if atall For each redaction I request a written explanation thatmeets the requirements of the case law cited above
cc Phil Stern
Records Request
2 of 2 622011 810 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 50 of 77
Subject Re Fwd Runnemede Board of Education Open PublicMeetings ActFrom John Paff ltpaffpoboxcomgtDate Mon 09 May 2011 134726 -0400To Nancy Ward ltnwardrunnemedeschoolsorggt
Thank you
On 592011 116 PM Nancy Ward wrote
Mr Paff
The Board has named me Custodian of Records Please direct allfuturecommunication to me The May 10 2011 meeting is theRe-organization ofthe Runnemede Board of Education The agenda is set and is verycomprehensive I intend to defer the letter and any discussionregardingits content to the next regular meeting the date of which willbe setat the re-organization tomorrow night In keeping with thedistrictsmeeting pattern that will be May 25 2011
Nancy BWard EdD
Superintendent of Schools
-----Original Message-----From John PaffSent 572011 42300 PMTo nwardrunnemedeschoolsorgCc vcarmodyrunnemedeschoolsorg psternasgllawcomSubject Fwd Runnemede Board of Education Open Public MeetingsAct
Here is another e-mail in case my original one should have beendirected to Ms Ward and not Ms Carmody
JP
-------- Original Message --------Subject Runnemede Board of Education Open Public Meetings ActDate Sat 07 May 2011 152319 -0400From John Paff
Re Fwd Runnemede Board of Education Open Public Meetings Act
1 of 2 622011 811 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 51 of 77
Reply-To paffpoboxcomTo vcarmodyrunnemedeschoolsorg psternasgllawcom
Ms Carmody and Mr Stern
Attached is a letter that I would like the Board to consider atits May10 2011 meeting Would you please a) acknowledge receipt of theletterand b) distribute it to all the Board members
Note that the last paragraph of the letter indicates that I willfilesuit against the Board if the issues in the letter arentaddressedSo if the Boards agenda for the May 10th meeting is so tightthat myletter cannot be accommodated please advise me of such andprovide ameeting date where my letter will be addressed so that I knowthat I amnot being ignored
Thank you
John Paff ChairmanNew Jersey Libertarian PartysOpen Government Advocacy Project
Re Fwd Runnemede Board of Education Open Public Meetings Act
2 of 2 622011 811 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 52 of 77
Subject OPRA RequestFrom Philip Stern ltpsternasgllawcomgtDate Fri 20 May 2011 161015 -0500To paffpoboxcom ltpaffpoboxcomgtCC Nancy Ward ltnwardrunnemedeschoolsorggt
Mr Paff please find attached to this email a response to your request forbusiness records Please note that in providing you with the attachedrecords the Runnemede Borough Board of Education waives no rightsregarding the attorney-client privilege Do not hesitate to call me if youhave any questions Phil Stern
Philip E SternAdams Stern Gutierrez amp Lattiboudere LLCThe Legal Center1037 Raymond Blvd Suite 710Newark New Jersey 07102(973) 735-2742 (office telephone)(201) 914-2415 (cellular telephone)(973) 735-2743 (office telefax)
May 20 Paff responsepdf
Content-DescriptionMay 20 Paffresponsepdf
Content-Type applicationpdf
Content-Encoding base64
OPRA Request
1 of 1 622011 815 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 53 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 54 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 55 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 56 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 57 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 58 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 59 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 60 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 61 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 62 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 63 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 64 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 65 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 66 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 67 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 68 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 69 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 70 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 71 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 72 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 73 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 74 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 75 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 76 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 77 of 77
- Civil Complaint
- Exhibits
-
The school boad is not as inept as the mayor and council You dont have to be a collegegraduate or or even be able to read or write to get an elected position in runnemedeThe 2 new council members got elected because the are involved in the union andeveryone who supports the union came out to vote And the new mayor must have a lotof friends But now after the few months they have been in office it is clear to see thatthey are not able to handle the job Mayor14 is right that the people of Runnemedevoted because they thought they would get something in return for their vote but itlooks like they were wrong In the upcoming elections for school board and council votefor the person who will do the best job whether you like them or not Dont just vote forsomeone because you are told to372011 10214 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagethemayor14 wrotei am so glad this article was written and it clearly points out how inept the runnemedeboard of education actually is the board of education is not elected based on businessand education talent the elections are nothing more than a popularity contest i dontknow how other towns operate but runnemede boro is a total joke when it come toelections be it school board or general elections i wish everyone would get their headsout of their A$$ and truly investigate the school board canidates that are running forelection VOTE WITH YOUR HEAD NOT WITH YOUR HEART362011 91350 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagesavetheschools wroteSeveral people are running for the board for four open seats I signed a petition todayfor a new woman running Members are not paid If you live in Runnemede shopstewardyou have until Tuesday to get a petition submitted I asked and found out there is only 5people on average at the BOE meetings every month in Runnemede I hope more peoplestart to go I plan on it myself And we all need to go every month not just when weread negative press about our schools That is the only way we would all stay informedand not rely on the young man submitting OPRA requests Our town has always beenabout the kids and it needs to get back that way362011 80936 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser ImageShopsteward wroteWhy did it take one young man sending in OPRA requests to bring all this to lightWhy are you relying upon him to get to the bottom of it You say The other members(except for the one who was just arrested and resigned) are good people and didnothing wrong to the district and that might be true except for the fact that theyallowed that incredible salary and benefits to be given out and even though all kinds ofrumors were flying around it took an outsider with OPRA requests to bring this ghastlypimple to a head Sounds more like none of them are doing their jobs and should be outof office and off the payroll They should all just resign They arent doing the job thatwas assigned to them362011 32559 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Image
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 29 of 77
Shopsteward wroteA crime was committed here It began with a violation of the Publics trust by the peoplewho allowed this contract to be signed in the first place What a jokeHow many moreof these jobs are hidden in the budgets of our Schools There needs to be a thouroughcleaning of all thses tyeps of employees everywhere At the State County Municipaland Scool board level and the appointed Authorities too Everyone screams about theUnions but whenever you hear of some great big abuse it turns out the person wasnteven in the UnionClean up this mess first Mr Christie before yougo after the little guys It will save us all a lot more money362011 101606 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser ImageShopsteward wroteI still dont get itHow is a part time24 hr a week job worth so much This is aprime example of the waste that is giving the public workers a bad nameThe onlyproblem is it isnt some Union personIts management and its the same all over This isjust the tip of the iceberg they scream about the Unions but the real waste is in jobs likethis oneNo way this job or the thousands of others like it should be paid so well99465 PLUS BENEFITS incrediblethere should be a lawandthe person gets a pension based on that bloated salarytooThere should be other people losing their jobs not for theseperation aggreement but for letting this evenhappen352011 101125 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagethesplits wroteI guess this is Runnemedes version of a shared service352011 73450 PM
User Imagethesplits wroteLooks like its the same old Runnemede and I thought we voted for change Mayor352011 73202 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagesavetheschools wroteFrom what I understand and I live in town the board went into this separationagreement because the BA would have had a potential lawsuit and it would have costthe school district and tax payers a ton of money Much more than they are spendingnow And yes it is one school board member who was apparently corrupt Just one Theyoung man who was mentioned in the article has been OPRA requesting items and willget to the bottom of this situation with the former BA and the certain board memberBut that is just one person The other members (except for the one who was justarrested and resigned) are good people and did nothing wrong to the district Thisformer BA and her friend who was hired as the maint supervisor have been a hot topicfor a few years Ask the employees they were awful and needed to go It is awful thatthis money was not spent on our children It was a trainwreck from the beginning and ifI recall correctly when the hiring took place only one of the members voted no and that
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 30 of 77
was the local high school teacher metioned in another post Runnemede schools arefantastic and maybe the new people running for election will get some answers andmake some changes And maybe the BOE member who was mentioned by employees asbeing the reason why there could be a possible lawsuit should just resign I understandadmin make good money but they also need to be accountable for their actions and ifthe BA made a hostile environment and was supported by one BOE member both shouldbe gonenot just the BA352011 33207 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagecookmom wroteWhere is Gov Christies veto power352011 30321 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagecookmom wroteThis all happened with a local police officer and a FOP member and local high schoolteacher and member of the NJEA on the board The Runnemede Board is looking alotlike the DRPA and was this group picked by the new Mayor352011 30042 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagesickofpolsnj wroteThe real truth is the Board of Education member and Brazelton and the unethicalsituation that THEY created The questionable contracts and underhanded deals There isa certain Board Member that hopes that this ends here well it doesnt There is not aTeacher or employee in Runnemede Schools that would defend Brazelton same goes forSomerdale And many are willing to bring out MANY of the things that Brazelton did todestroy the district The ENTIRE Runnemede School Community is thrilled that Brazeltonis gone Snoopysam is clearly one of two people Kelly or the Board Member shouldwe name names Hows that Mayors race looking352011 114254 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser ImageShopsteward wrote$99465 plus benefits How much does she pay for her share of those benefitsor are they free to her Her replacement only works 24 hours a week are we being toldthat she got that much money for a part time job What is the matter with theidiots that hired her to begin withNo one should get that kind of money for a part timeThat is an awful lot of money for that kind of job We should not be surprised at all Thiskind of thing is everywhere in Camden CountyIts the NORMAL way of doingbusiness352011 113922 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagelookfar111 wroteYep same old story hire someone for $98000 when 10 equally qualified people woulddo it for 60k with a 20 year top out at 75 k Then a sweetheart adios gift And the cherry
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 31 of 77
on top Another tax increase for the people God I hate what the democrat machinehave done to this once great state352011 111649 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser ImageSnoopysam wrotesickofpolsnj you must be on ot those employees that Brazelton held accountable forHER actions You are right there is so much more to this story and when the real truthscome out there will be some emplopyeesadministratorsboard members hanging theirheads in shame Talk about wasting taxpayer dollars take a look at some of the lazyincompetent employees that Brazelton had to deal withand their HUGE mistakes thathad to be corrected which cost the taxpayers thousands upon thousands of dollars352011 94250 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagesickofpolsnj wroteYou are exactly correct A teacher would never get a sweatheart deal like this I wonderwhich Board Member it was that was mentioned in that letter Did you read the blog thatthis all came out on it has way more details than this articlehttpdansviewrunnemedewordpresscom352011 92934 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagesickofpolsnj wroteOnly thing is Runnemede never had these issues Somerdale had the same EXACT issueswith Brazelton Administrators arent allowed to comment however talk to the teachersand employees off record they will tell you all about Kelly352011 92726 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagesickofpolsnj wroteThere is so much more to this story I hope the CP will run a follow up 1 Look into therealtionship and hiring surrounding Doug the maintenance supervisor 2 Check intoBrazeltons past employment Somerdale Schools 3 Brazelton is rumored to be hired atthe completion of the settlement in Deptford 4 Look into unethical practices between aBoard Member and Brazelton 5 And what about the other Board member that wasrecently charged with a serious crime352011 92315 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imageicallbullschit wroteOnce again the government tries to pin their mistakes on an individual when they screwup royally What the paper fails to report is the other side Maybe years and years ofmismanagement and patronage were uncovered and it became a hostile environmentwhen people got called on their actions and the same old routine was stopped Maybethe school board realized it would be cheaper to pay one than to pay many for theirmistakes Maybe the school board was willing to pay in order to keep their dirty littlesecrets covered up Maybe the resident should look deeper into the actions of the schoolboard and the rest of the administration Maybe I am wrong but it seems that the board
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 32 of 77
got called on some issues and now they are attacking one individual to cover theirtracks They seem to be acting like the GREAT WIZARD OF OZ Pay no attention to theidiots behind the curtain we are the all powerful and all knowing school board Pull backthe curtain people because there are people behind there that are faking their waythrough and going to wind up costing the district millions Just saying352011 85642 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagecookmom wroteSchool board President Colleen Kurth said it was much easier to go with a separationagreement than pay more legal fees She compared paying Brazelton to paying ateacher out sick while a substitute fills in The job just has to go on Kurth said I amconfused A teacher out SICK is NOT the same as a HOSTILE work enviorment How cana medical condition be compared to a person being accused of a hostile workenviorment A teacher would be REQUIRED to use their sick days~ since this is beingcompared to an illness ~was Brazelton REQUIRED to give up her sickvacation pay orwas that part of the dealWas she also paid for those days Wouldnt we all love to becollecting a salary from two towns As now she is being paid by Runnemde AND acurrent SCHOOL district where she is currently employed THIS is the waste in ourSchool districts352011 83552 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imageneocon wroteShe is part of the Protected Classes All you need to know is that she is better thanyou so just keep moveing along Nothing to see here352011 81912 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report Abuse
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 33 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 34 of 77
New Jersey Libertarian PartyOpen Government Advocacy Project
John Paff Chairman
PO Box 5424
Somerset NJ 08875-5424
Phone 732-873-1251 - Fax 908-325-0129
Email lpsmcpoboxcom
May 7 2011
Hon Colleen Kurth President and members of the
Runnemede Board of Education
505 W Third Ave
Runnemede NJ 08078 (via e-mail to vcarmodyrunnemedeschoolsorg )
Dear President Kurth and Board members
I write both individually and on behalf the New Jersey Libertarian Partys Open
Government Advocacy Project to comment on 1) the manner in which the Board of Education
goes into nonpublic (ie executive or closed) session and 2) the level of detail contained within
the Boardrsquos executive session minutes
Issue 1 Executive Session resolutions
As you are aware the Senator Byron M Baer Open Public Meetings Act requires public
bodies such as the Runnemede Board of Education to publicly pass a resolution before
excluding the public from a meeting The statute that requires the resolution states
NJSA 104-13mdashClosed meetings resolution to conduct
No public body shall exclude the public from any meeting to discuss any
matter described in subsection 7 b (104-12) until the public body shall
first adopt a resolution at a meeting to which the public shall be admitted
a Stating the general nature of the subject to be discussed and
b Stating as precisely as possible the time when and the circumstances
under which the discussion conducted in closed session of the public body
can be disclosed to the public
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 35 of 77
2
By way of a recent records request I received resolutions which purport to authorize
executive sessions intended to be held by the Board of Education on July 28 2010 (2 sessions)
August 20 2010 February 2 1011 February 23 2011 (2 sessions) and March 2 2011 Those
resolutions which are virtually identical to each other state
Executive Session to discuss student matters personnel contractual and
legal matters [time and a statement as to whether action will be
taken]
[identity of maker of motion etc]
Resolved that pursuant to Section 8 of the Public Meetings Act the public
shall be excluded from that portion of the meeting involving the discussion
of personnel legal and contractual matters Further resolved that
discussion of such subject matters discussed in Executive Session can be
disclosed to public upon official action if any at the conclusion of the
executive session or at a public session at some later date
I dont think that this form of resolution satisfies NJSA 104-13 because it gives the
public no real sense of what is being privately discussed1 To paraphrase the highest court of of
another state a body which only announces ldquolegal mattersrdquo or ldquopersonnel negotiationsrdquo for
going into executive session has said nothing It might has well have stated to the audience
ldquoLadies and gentlemen we are going into executive sessionrdquo and stopped there Hinds County
Board of Supervisors v Common Cause of Mississippi 551 So2d 107 114 (MS 1989)
Of course there can be no dispute that the Board of Education often has legitimate
reasons to meet in nonpublic session Among these reasons is the need to prevent the adverse
parties in litigation or contract negotiations from gaining an unfair advantage and to allow
members of the governing body to debate and deliberate personnel matters without public
scrutiny or participation But the need to discuss matters privately should not prevent the
public from being informed as precisely as possible of the topics that are being privately
discussed
For example suppose that Runnemede Board is being sued by a Mr Jones who was
injured after he slipped and fell on what he claims to be negligently maintained school
property Since the lawsuit is already a public record there is no public purpose served by
vaguely describing a private discussion of it as ldquostudent matters personnel contractual and
legal mattersrdquo Rather the resolution should at the very least describe the private discussion as
1 In January 2007 when I most recently litigated this issue Middlesex County Superior Court Judge Alexander P
Waugh issued a written decision in which he agreed with other court decisions that closed session resolutions
should contain as much information as is consistent with full public knowledge without doing any harm to the
public interest Judge Waughs decision and other case documents are on the Web at
httpogtfarchiveorgOGTFMonroeBOEWebreadypdf
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 36 of 77
3
ldquoDiscussion of slip and fall negligence suit Jones v Runnemede Board Docket No CAM-L-
012345-11rdquo This way the public has a very good sense of what the Boardrsquos private discussion is
about while the ability of the Board to develop its lawsuit strategy is not undermined
Using the same example suppose that Jonesrsquo attorney sent the Boardrsquos attorney an offer
to fully settle the lawsuit upon the Boardrsquos payment of $20000 While the Board would
obviously need to discuss how to respond to the offer in private lest Jones or his attorney
would be in the audience witnessing the discussion there is no reason why the public cannot be
informed in the NJSA 104-13 resolution that the Board will meet in private to discuss ldquoa
settlement offer received from the Plaintiff in the slip and fall negligence suit known as Jones v
Runnemede Board Docket No CAM-L-012345-11 in which the Plaintiff offers to settle the suit
in exchange for the Board paying him $20000rdquo While it may initially seem that this would
provide ldquotoo muchrdquo information to the public this concern disappears once it is realized that
the sole purpose of the exception2 that allows litigation matters to be discussed in private is to
keep the adverse party to the litigation in the dark regarding the Boardrsquos position3 Since in this
example the adverse party (ie Jones) already knows that he offered to settle the lawsuit for
$20000 there is no legitimate reason why the public should not also know of the tendered
settlement offer
As another example suppose that a personnel matter such as whether or not a Mrs
Smith a public works employee should be disciplined because of repeatedly arriving late to
work is to be discussed in closed session In such a case the amount of detail set forth in the
NJSA 104-13 resolution should correspond to the amount of detail that the Board and its
attorney predict will be publicly disclosed in the closed meetingrsquos minutes when those minutes
are made public
The standard that the Board is to use when determining how much information about a
personnel matter is to be disclosed in the closed sessionrsquos minutes is set forth in South Jersey
Publishing Company Inc v New Jersey Expressway Authority 124 NJ 478 (1991) That
standard is that a) the public needs information if it is properly fulfill its role of evaluating the
wisdom of governmental action or a decision not to act b) that New Jerseys strong public
policy requires that a public bodyrsquos actions and decisions to not act be disclosed in the bodys
closed meeting minutes along with sufficient facts and information to permit the public to
understand and appraise the reasonableness of the bodys determination and c) to the extent a
cognizable privacy interest may be compromised by the required disclosure the extent of
disclosure may be modified through redactions of the minutes provided the public interest in
disclosure is not subverted
2 NJSA104-12(b)(7) is to prevent adverse parties to litigation and contracts from learning the details of the
public bodyrsquos negotiation tactics and litigation strategy3 See the discussion in Paff v Washington Township Docket No MER-L-2205-07 and Nevin v Asbury Park City
Board 2005 WL 2847974 (App Div November 1 2005) which are on-line at
httpogtfarchiveorgOGTFWashingtonpdf (Nevin begins at page 44 of the PDF file at the link)
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 37 of 77
4
Thus regardless of whether the Board disciplines Ms Smith or chooses to not impose
discipline due to her lateness the outcome should be recorded in the closed meeting minutes
The question of whether that entry in the minutes should be redacted before the minutes are
made public requires a balancing of Ms Smithrsquos interest in keeping the disciplinary matter
private against the publicrsquos interest in effectively monitoring the Board If the Board with
counselrsquos advice determines after balancing these interests that the outcome will be published
unredacted in the closed sessionrsquos minutes (ie if the minutes will disclose to the public eg that
ldquoMs Smith was suspended for three days on account of her habitual latenessrdquo) then the exact
nature of the matter (ie that ldquothe Board will discuss disciplining Ms Smith for excessive
latenessrdquo) should be set forth in the closed meetingrsquos NJSA 104-13 resolution Inversely if the
Board determines that Ms Smithrsquos privacy interest exceeds the publicrsquos right to know then less
information (eg ldquothe Board will discuss disciplining an employee for excessive latenessrdquo)
should be set forth in the closed meetingrsquos NJSA 104-13 resolution
In other words if the officer or employee being discussed doesnt have a privacy interest
sufficient to withstand a citizens request for the executive session minutes why should not the
public know the topic of the executive session prior to it occurring
Irsquove attached as Exhibit pages 1 -3 is a model resolution that I would like the Board to
use in the future
Issue 2 Executive Session minutes
Attached as Exhibit Page 4 as an example are the Boardrsquos July 28 2010 executive session
minutes It is troubling that a meeting that lasted over an hour is being summed up in a single
sentence ldquoMr Phil Stern addressed the Board of Education about personnel issuesrdquo These
minutes are not ldquoreasonably comprehensiblerdquo as required by NJSA 104-14
The purpose of closed meeting minutes is not merely to inform the public of whatoccurred during the private session but also to create a record for the Board membersthemselves A Board member who is newly elected in 2012 should be able by referringsolely to the minutes to figure out what issues the Board addressed during any previouslyheld closed meeting This hypothetical Board member after reading the July 28 2010closed minutes could not possibly figure out which employees or officials Mr Stern wastalking about
Better practice would be to record closed minutes that are much morecomprehensive but to redact that material that must be shielded from public view Forexample the minutes could have said
Mr Stern addressed the Board of Education about the habitualtardiness of 2nd grade teacher Mary Doe and her propensity to eatlibrary paste and scream hysterically during fire drills Herecommended that she be sent for psychiatric evaluation
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 38 of 77
5
Of course if a member of the public requested these hypothetical minutes the Boardmay need to redact them in order to protect privacy interests The point however is thatregardless of whether unredacted closed meeting minutes are ever released to the publicthey should contain sufficient details so that the Board members themselves can monthsor years later know what was discussed
Attached as Exhibit pages 5 ndash 9 is an order recently entered in Schmidt et al v City of
Gloucester City et al Docket No CAM-L-1287-11 As you can see paraA(3) supports my position
that the Boardrsquos minutes are not ldquoreasonably comprehensiblerdquo as required by law
Conclusion
Since some public bodies do not take my requests for Meetings Act compliance seriously
I regret having to inform the Board that I will sue for declaratory and injunctive relief in
accordance with NJSA 104-16 unless I receive assurances from the Boardmdashwithin a few days
after its May 10 2011 meetingmdashthat it will work in good faith to improve the amount of
information in both its closed session resolutions and minutes If the Boardrsquos agenda is already
set for the May 10 2011 meeting please at least acknowledge this letter and let me know the
date of the meeting at which it will be considered
Thank you very much for your attention to this matter I look forward to hearing from
you
Sincerely
John Paff
cc Philip E Stern Esq w enc (via e-mail to psternasgllawcom )
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 39 of 77
RUNNEMEDE BOARD OF EDUCATIONRESOLUTION NO ___________
AUTHORIZING EXECUTIVE SESSION
WHEREAS while the Sen Byron M Baer Open Public Meetings Act (NJSA 104-6 et seq) requires allmeetings of the Runnemede Board of Education to be held in public NJSA 104-12(b) sets forth nine (9)types of matters that may lawfully be discussed in ldquoExecutive Sessionrdquo ie without the public beingpermitted to attend and
WHEREAS the Runnemede Board of Education has determined that _____ (insert number) issues arepermitted by NJSA 104-12(b) to be discussed without the public in attendance shall be discussed duringan Executive Session to be held on _________________________ 20____ at _______ PM and
WHEREAS the nine (9) exceptions to public meetings set forth in NJSA 104-12(b) are listed below andnext to each exception is a box within which the number of issues to be privately discussed that fall withinthat exception shall be written and after each exception is a space where additional information that willdisclose as much information about the discussion as possible without undermining the purpose of theexception shall be written
ldquo(1) Any matter which by express provision of Federal law State statute or rule of courtshall be rendered confidential or excluded from public discussionrdquo The legal citation to theprovision(s) at issue is__________________________ and the nature of the matter described asspecifically as possible without undermining the need for confidentiality is _______________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(2) Any matter in which the release of information would impair a right to receive fundsfrom the federal governmentrdquo The nature of the matter described as specifically as possiblewithout undermining the need for confidentiality is _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(3) Any material the disclosure of which constitutes an unwarranted invasion of individualprivacy such as any records data reports recommendations or other personal material ofany educational training social service medical health custodial child protectionrehabilitation legal defense welfare housing relocation insurance and similar program orinstitution operated by a public body pertaining to any specific individual admitted to orserved by such institution or program including but not limited to information relative tothe individuals personal and family circumstances and any material pertaining toadmission discharge treatment progress or condition of any individual unless theindividual concerned (or in the case of a minor or incompetent his guardian) shall requestin writing that the same be disclosed publiclyrdquo The nature of the matter described asspecifically as possible without undermining the need for confidentiality is______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(4) Any collective bargaining agreement or the terms and conditions of which are proposedfor inclusion in any collective bargaining agreement including the negotiation of terms andconditions with employees or representatives of employees of the public bodyrdquo The collectivebargaining contract(s) discussed are between the Board and ____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Exhibit Page 1Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 40 of 77
ldquo(5) Any matter involving the purchase lease or acquisition of real property with publicfunds the setting of bank rates or investment of public funds where it could adversely affectthe public interest if discussion of such matters were disclosedrdquo The nature of the matterdescribed as specifically as possible without undermining the need for confidentiality is____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(6) Any tactics and techniques utilized in protecting the safety and property of the publicprovided that their disclosure could impair such protection Any investigations of violationsor possible violations of the lawrdquo The nature of the matter described as specifically as possiblewithout undermining the need for confidentiality is ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(7) Any pending or anticipated litigation or contract negotiation in which the public body isor may become a party Any matters falling within the attorney-client privilege to the extentthat confidentiality is required in order for the attorney to exercise his ethicalduties as a lawyerrdquo The parties to and docket numbers of each item of litigation andor theparties to each contract discussed are __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ andnature of the discussion described as specifically as possible without undermining the need forconfidentiality is ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(8) Any matter involving the employment appointment termination of employment termsand conditions of employment evaluation of the performance promotion or disciplining ofany specific prospective public officer or employee or current public officer or employeeemployed or appointed by the public body unless all individual employees or appointees whoserights could be adversely affected request in writing that such matter or matters be discussed ata public meetingrdquo Subject to the balancing of the publicrsquos interest and the employeersquos privacyrights under South Jersey Publishing Co v New Jersey Expressway Authority 124 NJ 478 theemployee(s) and nature of the discussion described as specifically as possible withoutundermining the need for confidentiality are _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(9) Any deliberation of a public body occurring after a public hearing that may result in theimposition of a specific civil penalty upon the responding party or the suspension or loss of alicense or permit belonging to the responding party as a result of an act of omission forwhich the responding party bears responsibilityrdquo The nature of the matter described asspecifically as possible without undermining the need for confidentiality is______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
WHEREAS the length of the Executive Session is estimated to be ________ minutes after which the publicmeeting of the Board shall (circle one) reconvene and immediately adjourn or reconvene and proceed withbusiness
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Runnemede Board of Education will go into ExecutiveSession for only the above stated reasons
Exhibit Page 2Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 41 of 77
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board hereby declares that its discussion of the aforementionedsubject(s) will be made public at a time when the publicrsquos interest in disclosure is greater than any privacy orgovernmental interest being protected from disclosure For each of the above items the estimated date bywhich such disclosure can be made andor the occurrence that needs to take place before disclosure can bemade are listed below (attach separate sheet if necessary)
Subject of Discussion Estimated Date Necessary Occurrence
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Clerk at the present public meeting shall read aloud enough ofthis resolution so that members of the public in attendance can understand as precisely as possible thenature of the matters that will privately discussed
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Clerk on the next business day following this meeting shallfurnish a copy of this resolution to any member of the public who requests one at the fees allowed byNJSA 471A-1 et seq
_________________________________Board President
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS ATRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTIONAPPROVED BY THE RUNNEMEDE BOARD OF EDUCATION AT ITSPUBLIC MEETING HELD ON ______________________20___
_______________________________________Board Secretary
Exhibit Page 3Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 42 of 77
Exhibit Page 4Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 43 of 77
Exhibit Page 5Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 44 of 77
Exhibit Page 6Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 45 of 77
Exhibit Page 7Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 46 of 77
Exhibit Page 8Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 47 of 77
Exhibit Page 9Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 48 of 77
Subject Records RequestFrom John Paff ltpaffpoboxcomgtDate Sat 07 May 2011 161444 -0400To vcarmodyrunnemedeschoolsorgCC psternasgllawcom
Ms Carmody
Please accept this e-mail as my request for government records inaccordance with the Open Public Records Act (OPRA) and the commonlaw right of access Please respond and send all responsivedocuments to me via e-mail at paffpoboxcom If e-mail is notpossible please fax responses and responsive records to me at908-325-0129 Also I would appreciate it if you wouldacknowledge your receipt of this e-mail
Background
In response to a records request I recently received redactedexecutive session minutes for the following dates July 28 2010(first session) August 26 2010 February 2 2011 February 232011 (two sessions) and March 2 2011 Although Mr Stern providedme with a sheet entitled Documents Exempt From OPRA request thatpurports to explain these redactions I am still unclear as to whythe matter was redacted and whether it was lawfully redacted
First I dont understand references such as NJSA 471A-11(12)(c) The version of OPRA that I have (plus every other oneIve seen) does not have internal numbers within NJSA471A-11 Am I correct that NJSA 471A-11(12)(c) isintended to refer to the exemption for records in connection withcollective negotiations including documents and statements ofstrategy or negotiating position and that NJSA 471A-11(7)is intended to refer to any record within the attorney-clientprivilege This paragraph shall not be construed as exempting fromaccess attorney or consultant bills or invoices except that suchbills or invoices may be redacted to remove any informationprotected by the attorney-client privilege Please advise
Second even if I correctly corresponded the claimed exemptions tothe OPRA statute I have no way of knowing whether the mattersredacted are actually exempt from access When a custodiansuppresses any portion of any requested record NJSA471A-5(g) requires him or her to state the ldquospecific basisrdquo foreach suppressed element Beyond stating the ldquospecific basisrdquo foreach suppressed element he or she is required to ldquoproduce
Records Request
1 of 2 622011 810 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 49 of 77
specific reliable evidence sufficient to meet a statutorilyrecognized basis for confidentialityrdquo Courier News v HunterdonCounty Prosecutorrsquos Office 358 NJ Super 373 382-83 (App Div2003) Further he or she must explain each suppression in amanner that ldquowill enable other parties to assess the applicabilityof the privilege or protectionrdquo Paff v New Jersey Department ofLabor Board of Review 379 NJ Super 346 354-55 (2005)(quoting R 410-2(e))
Records requested
Runnemede Board of Education minutes for the following dates July28 2010 (728 pm session only) August 26 2010 February 22011 February 23 2011 (both sessions) and March 2 2011 Iwould like these minutes redacted as narrowly as possible if atall For each redaction I request a written explanation thatmeets the requirements of the case law cited above
cc Phil Stern
Records Request
2 of 2 622011 810 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 50 of 77
Subject Re Fwd Runnemede Board of Education Open PublicMeetings ActFrom John Paff ltpaffpoboxcomgtDate Mon 09 May 2011 134726 -0400To Nancy Ward ltnwardrunnemedeschoolsorggt
Thank you
On 592011 116 PM Nancy Ward wrote
Mr Paff
The Board has named me Custodian of Records Please direct allfuturecommunication to me The May 10 2011 meeting is theRe-organization ofthe Runnemede Board of Education The agenda is set and is verycomprehensive I intend to defer the letter and any discussionregardingits content to the next regular meeting the date of which willbe setat the re-organization tomorrow night In keeping with thedistrictsmeeting pattern that will be May 25 2011
Nancy BWard EdD
Superintendent of Schools
-----Original Message-----From John PaffSent 572011 42300 PMTo nwardrunnemedeschoolsorgCc vcarmodyrunnemedeschoolsorg psternasgllawcomSubject Fwd Runnemede Board of Education Open Public MeetingsAct
Here is another e-mail in case my original one should have beendirected to Ms Ward and not Ms Carmody
JP
-------- Original Message --------Subject Runnemede Board of Education Open Public Meetings ActDate Sat 07 May 2011 152319 -0400From John Paff
Re Fwd Runnemede Board of Education Open Public Meetings Act
1 of 2 622011 811 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 51 of 77
Reply-To paffpoboxcomTo vcarmodyrunnemedeschoolsorg psternasgllawcom
Ms Carmody and Mr Stern
Attached is a letter that I would like the Board to consider atits May10 2011 meeting Would you please a) acknowledge receipt of theletterand b) distribute it to all the Board members
Note that the last paragraph of the letter indicates that I willfilesuit against the Board if the issues in the letter arentaddressedSo if the Boards agenda for the May 10th meeting is so tightthat myletter cannot be accommodated please advise me of such andprovide ameeting date where my letter will be addressed so that I knowthat I amnot being ignored
Thank you
John Paff ChairmanNew Jersey Libertarian PartysOpen Government Advocacy Project
Re Fwd Runnemede Board of Education Open Public Meetings Act
2 of 2 622011 811 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 52 of 77
Subject OPRA RequestFrom Philip Stern ltpsternasgllawcomgtDate Fri 20 May 2011 161015 -0500To paffpoboxcom ltpaffpoboxcomgtCC Nancy Ward ltnwardrunnemedeschoolsorggt
Mr Paff please find attached to this email a response to your request forbusiness records Please note that in providing you with the attachedrecords the Runnemede Borough Board of Education waives no rightsregarding the attorney-client privilege Do not hesitate to call me if youhave any questions Phil Stern
Philip E SternAdams Stern Gutierrez amp Lattiboudere LLCThe Legal Center1037 Raymond Blvd Suite 710Newark New Jersey 07102(973) 735-2742 (office telephone)(201) 914-2415 (cellular telephone)(973) 735-2743 (office telefax)
May 20 Paff responsepdf
Content-DescriptionMay 20 Paffresponsepdf
Content-Type applicationpdf
Content-Encoding base64
OPRA Request
1 of 1 622011 815 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 53 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 54 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 55 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 56 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 57 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 58 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 59 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 60 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 61 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 62 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 63 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 64 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 65 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 66 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 67 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 68 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 69 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 70 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 71 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 72 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 73 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 74 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 75 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 76 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 77 of 77
- Civil Complaint
- Exhibits
-
Shopsteward wroteA crime was committed here It began with a violation of the Publics trust by the peoplewho allowed this contract to be signed in the first place What a jokeHow many moreof these jobs are hidden in the budgets of our Schools There needs to be a thouroughcleaning of all thses tyeps of employees everywhere At the State County Municipaland Scool board level and the appointed Authorities too Everyone screams about theUnions but whenever you hear of some great big abuse it turns out the person wasnteven in the UnionClean up this mess first Mr Christie before yougo after the little guys It will save us all a lot more money362011 101606 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser ImageShopsteward wroteI still dont get itHow is a part time24 hr a week job worth so much This is aprime example of the waste that is giving the public workers a bad nameThe onlyproblem is it isnt some Union personIts management and its the same all over This isjust the tip of the iceberg they scream about the Unions but the real waste is in jobs likethis oneNo way this job or the thousands of others like it should be paid so well99465 PLUS BENEFITS incrediblethere should be a lawandthe person gets a pension based on that bloated salarytooThere should be other people losing their jobs not for theseperation aggreement but for letting this evenhappen352011 101125 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagethesplits wroteI guess this is Runnemedes version of a shared service352011 73450 PM
User Imagethesplits wroteLooks like its the same old Runnemede and I thought we voted for change Mayor352011 73202 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagesavetheschools wroteFrom what I understand and I live in town the board went into this separationagreement because the BA would have had a potential lawsuit and it would have costthe school district and tax payers a ton of money Much more than they are spendingnow And yes it is one school board member who was apparently corrupt Just one Theyoung man who was mentioned in the article has been OPRA requesting items and willget to the bottom of this situation with the former BA and the certain board memberBut that is just one person The other members (except for the one who was justarrested and resigned) are good people and did nothing wrong to the district Thisformer BA and her friend who was hired as the maint supervisor have been a hot topicfor a few years Ask the employees they were awful and needed to go It is awful thatthis money was not spent on our children It was a trainwreck from the beginning and ifI recall correctly when the hiring took place only one of the members voted no and that
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 30 of 77
was the local high school teacher metioned in another post Runnemede schools arefantastic and maybe the new people running for election will get some answers andmake some changes And maybe the BOE member who was mentioned by employees asbeing the reason why there could be a possible lawsuit should just resign I understandadmin make good money but they also need to be accountable for their actions and ifthe BA made a hostile environment and was supported by one BOE member both shouldbe gonenot just the BA352011 33207 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagecookmom wroteWhere is Gov Christies veto power352011 30321 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagecookmom wroteThis all happened with a local police officer and a FOP member and local high schoolteacher and member of the NJEA on the board The Runnemede Board is looking alotlike the DRPA and was this group picked by the new Mayor352011 30042 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagesickofpolsnj wroteThe real truth is the Board of Education member and Brazelton and the unethicalsituation that THEY created The questionable contracts and underhanded deals There isa certain Board Member that hopes that this ends here well it doesnt There is not aTeacher or employee in Runnemede Schools that would defend Brazelton same goes forSomerdale And many are willing to bring out MANY of the things that Brazelton did todestroy the district The ENTIRE Runnemede School Community is thrilled that Brazeltonis gone Snoopysam is clearly one of two people Kelly or the Board Member shouldwe name names Hows that Mayors race looking352011 114254 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser ImageShopsteward wrote$99465 plus benefits How much does she pay for her share of those benefitsor are they free to her Her replacement only works 24 hours a week are we being toldthat she got that much money for a part time job What is the matter with theidiots that hired her to begin withNo one should get that kind of money for a part timeThat is an awful lot of money for that kind of job We should not be surprised at all Thiskind of thing is everywhere in Camden CountyIts the NORMAL way of doingbusiness352011 113922 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagelookfar111 wroteYep same old story hire someone for $98000 when 10 equally qualified people woulddo it for 60k with a 20 year top out at 75 k Then a sweetheart adios gift And the cherry
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 31 of 77
on top Another tax increase for the people God I hate what the democrat machinehave done to this once great state352011 111649 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser ImageSnoopysam wrotesickofpolsnj you must be on ot those employees that Brazelton held accountable forHER actions You are right there is so much more to this story and when the real truthscome out there will be some emplopyeesadministratorsboard members hanging theirheads in shame Talk about wasting taxpayer dollars take a look at some of the lazyincompetent employees that Brazelton had to deal withand their HUGE mistakes thathad to be corrected which cost the taxpayers thousands upon thousands of dollars352011 94250 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagesickofpolsnj wroteYou are exactly correct A teacher would never get a sweatheart deal like this I wonderwhich Board Member it was that was mentioned in that letter Did you read the blog thatthis all came out on it has way more details than this articlehttpdansviewrunnemedewordpresscom352011 92934 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagesickofpolsnj wroteOnly thing is Runnemede never had these issues Somerdale had the same EXACT issueswith Brazelton Administrators arent allowed to comment however talk to the teachersand employees off record they will tell you all about Kelly352011 92726 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagesickofpolsnj wroteThere is so much more to this story I hope the CP will run a follow up 1 Look into therealtionship and hiring surrounding Doug the maintenance supervisor 2 Check intoBrazeltons past employment Somerdale Schools 3 Brazelton is rumored to be hired atthe completion of the settlement in Deptford 4 Look into unethical practices between aBoard Member and Brazelton 5 And what about the other Board member that wasrecently charged with a serious crime352011 92315 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imageicallbullschit wroteOnce again the government tries to pin their mistakes on an individual when they screwup royally What the paper fails to report is the other side Maybe years and years ofmismanagement and patronage were uncovered and it became a hostile environmentwhen people got called on their actions and the same old routine was stopped Maybethe school board realized it would be cheaper to pay one than to pay many for theirmistakes Maybe the school board was willing to pay in order to keep their dirty littlesecrets covered up Maybe the resident should look deeper into the actions of the schoolboard and the rest of the administration Maybe I am wrong but it seems that the board
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 32 of 77
got called on some issues and now they are attacking one individual to cover theirtracks They seem to be acting like the GREAT WIZARD OF OZ Pay no attention to theidiots behind the curtain we are the all powerful and all knowing school board Pull backthe curtain people because there are people behind there that are faking their waythrough and going to wind up costing the district millions Just saying352011 85642 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagecookmom wroteSchool board President Colleen Kurth said it was much easier to go with a separationagreement than pay more legal fees She compared paying Brazelton to paying ateacher out sick while a substitute fills in The job just has to go on Kurth said I amconfused A teacher out SICK is NOT the same as a HOSTILE work enviorment How cana medical condition be compared to a person being accused of a hostile workenviorment A teacher would be REQUIRED to use their sick days~ since this is beingcompared to an illness ~was Brazelton REQUIRED to give up her sickvacation pay orwas that part of the dealWas she also paid for those days Wouldnt we all love to becollecting a salary from two towns As now she is being paid by Runnemde AND acurrent SCHOOL district where she is currently employed THIS is the waste in ourSchool districts352011 83552 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imageneocon wroteShe is part of the Protected Classes All you need to know is that she is better thanyou so just keep moveing along Nothing to see here352011 81912 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report Abuse
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 33 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 34 of 77
New Jersey Libertarian PartyOpen Government Advocacy Project
John Paff Chairman
PO Box 5424
Somerset NJ 08875-5424
Phone 732-873-1251 - Fax 908-325-0129
Email lpsmcpoboxcom
May 7 2011
Hon Colleen Kurth President and members of the
Runnemede Board of Education
505 W Third Ave
Runnemede NJ 08078 (via e-mail to vcarmodyrunnemedeschoolsorg )
Dear President Kurth and Board members
I write both individually and on behalf the New Jersey Libertarian Partys Open
Government Advocacy Project to comment on 1) the manner in which the Board of Education
goes into nonpublic (ie executive or closed) session and 2) the level of detail contained within
the Boardrsquos executive session minutes
Issue 1 Executive Session resolutions
As you are aware the Senator Byron M Baer Open Public Meetings Act requires public
bodies such as the Runnemede Board of Education to publicly pass a resolution before
excluding the public from a meeting The statute that requires the resolution states
NJSA 104-13mdashClosed meetings resolution to conduct
No public body shall exclude the public from any meeting to discuss any
matter described in subsection 7 b (104-12) until the public body shall
first adopt a resolution at a meeting to which the public shall be admitted
a Stating the general nature of the subject to be discussed and
b Stating as precisely as possible the time when and the circumstances
under which the discussion conducted in closed session of the public body
can be disclosed to the public
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 35 of 77
2
By way of a recent records request I received resolutions which purport to authorize
executive sessions intended to be held by the Board of Education on July 28 2010 (2 sessions)
August 20 2010 February 2 1011 February 23 2011 (2 sessions) and March 2 2011 Those
resolutions which are virtually identical to each other state
Executive Session to discuss student matters personnel contractual and
legal matters [time and a statement as to whether action will be
taken]
[identity of maker of motion etc]
Resolved that pursuant to Section 8 of the Public Meetings Act the public
shall be excluded from that portion of the meeting involving the discussion
of personnel legal and contractual matters Further resolved that
discussion of such subject matters discussed in Executive Session can be
disclosed to public upon official action if any at the conclusion of the
executive session or at a public session at some later date
I dont think that this form of resolution satisfies NJSA 104-13 because it gives the
public no real sense of what is being privately discussed1 To paraphrase the highest court of of
another state a body which only announces ldquolegal mattersrdquo or ldquopersonnel negotiationsrdquo for
going into executive session has said nothing It might has well have stated to the audience
ldquoLadies and gentlemen we are going into executive sessionrdquo and stopped there Hinds County
Board of Supervisors v Common Cause of Mississippi 551 So2d 107 114 (MS 1989)
Of course there can be no dispute that the Board of Education often has legitimate
reasons to meet in nonpublic session Among these reasons is the need to prevent the adverse
parties in litigation or contract negotiations from gaining an unfair advantage and to allow
members of the governing body to debate and deliberate personnel matters without public
scrutiny or participation But the need to discuss matters privately should not prevent the
public from being informed as precisely as possible of the topics that are being privately
discussed
For example suppose that Runnemede Board is being sued by a Mr Jones who was
injured after he slipped and fell on what he claims to be negligently maintained school
property Since the lawsuit is already a public record there is no public purpose served by
vaguely describing a private discussion of it as ldquostudent matters personnel contractual and
legal mattersrdquo Rather the resolution should at the very least describe the private discussion as
1 In January 2007 when I most recently litigated this issue Middlesex County Superior Court Judge Alexander P
Waugh issued a written decision in which he agreed with other court decisions that closed session resolutions
should contain as much information as is consistent with full public knowledge without doing any harm to the
public interest Judge Waughs decision and other case documents are on the Web at
httpogtfarchiveorgOGTFMonroeBOEWebreadypdf
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 36 of 77
3
ldquoDiscussion of slip and fall negligence suit Jones v Runnemede Board Docket No CAM-L-
012345-11rdquo This way the public has a very good sense of what the Boardrsquos private discussion is
about while the ability of the Board to develop its lawsuit strategy is not undermined
Using the same example suppose that Jonesrsquo attorney sent the Boardrsquos attorney an offer
to fully settle the lawsuit upon the Boardrsquos payment of $20000 While the Board would
obviously need to discuss how to respond to the offer in private lest Jones or his attorney
would be in the audience witnessing the discussion there is no reason why the public cannot be
informed in the NJSA 104-13 resolution that the Board will meet in private to discuss ldquoa
settlement offer received from the Plaintiff in the slip and fall negligence suit known as Jones v
Runnemede Board Docket No CAM-L-012345-11 in which the Plaintiff offers to settle the suit
in exchange for the Board paying him $20000rdquo While it may initially seem that this would
provide ldquotoo muchrdquo information to the public this concern disappears once it is realized that
the sole purpose of the exception2 that allows litigation matters to be discussed in private is to
keep the adverse party to the litigation in the dark regarding the Boardrsquos position3 Since in this
example the adverse party (ie Jones) already knows that he offered to settle the lawsuit for
$20000 there is no legitimate reason why the public should not also know of the tendered
settlement offer
As another example suppose that a personnel matter such as whether or not a Mrs
Smith a public works employee should be disciplined because of repeatedly arriving late to
work is to be discussed in closed session In such a case the amount of detail set forth in the
NJSA 104-13 resolution should correspond to the amount of detail that the Board and its
attorney predict will be publicly disclosed in the closed meetingrsquos minutes when those minutes
are made public
The standard that the Board is to use when determining how much information about a
personnel matter is to be disclosed in the closed sessionrsquos minutes is set forth in South Jersey
Publishing Company Inc v New Jersey Expressway Authority 124 NJ 478 (1991) That
standard is that a) the public needs information if it is properly fulfill its role of evaluating the
wisdom of governmental action or a decision not to act b) that New Jerseys strong public
policy requires that a public bodyrsquos actions and decisions to not act be disclosed in the bodys
closed meeting minutes along with sufficient facts and information to permit the public to
understand and appraise the reasonableness of the bodys determination and c) to the extent a
cognizable privacy interest may be compromised by the required disclosure the extent of
disclosure may be modified through redactions of the minutes provided the public interest in
disclosure is not subverted
2 NJSA104-12(b)(7) is to prevent adverse parties to litigation and contracts from learning the details of the
public bodyrsquos negotiation tactics and litigation strategy3 See the discussion in Paff v Washington Township Docket No MER-L-2205-07 and Nevin v Asbury Park City
Board 2005 WL 2847974 (App Div November 1 2005) which are on-line at
httpogtfarchiveorgOGTFWashingtonpdf (Nevin begins at page 44 of the PDF file at the link)
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 37 of 77
4
Thus regardless of whether the Board disciplines Ms Smith or chooses to not impose
discipline due to her lateness the outcome should be recorded in the closed meeting minutes
The question of whether that entry in the minutes should be redacted before the minutes are
made public requires a balancing of Ms Smithrsquos interest in keeping the disciplinary matter
private against the publicrsquos interest in effectively monitoring the Board If the Board with
counselrsquos advice determines after balancing these interests that the outcome will be published
unredacted in the closed sessionrsquos minutes (ie if the minutes will disclose to the public eg that
ldquoMs Smith was suspended for three days on account of her habitual latenessrdquo) then the exact
nature of the matter (ie that ldquothe Board will discuss disciplining Ms Smith for excessive
latenessrdquo) should be set forth in the closed meetingrsquos NJSA 104-13 resolution Inversely if the
Board determines that Ms Smithrsquos privacy interest exceeds the publicrsquos right to know then less
information (eg ldquothe Board will discuss disciplining an employee for excessive latenessrdquo)
should be set forth in the closed meetingrsquos NJSA 104-13 resolution
In other words if the officer or employee being discussed doesnt have a privacy interest
sufficient to withstand a citizens request for the executive session minutes why should not the
public know the topic of the executive session prior to it occurring
Irsquove attached as Exhibit pages 1 -3 is a model resolution that I would like the Board to
use in the future
Issue 2 Executive Session minutes
Attached as Exhibit Page 4 as an example are the Boardrsquos July 28 2010 executive session
minutes It is troubling that a meeting that lasted over an hour is being summed up in a single
sentence ldquoMr Phil Stern addressed the Board of Education about personnel issuesrdquo These
minutes are not ldquoreasonably comprehensiblerdquo as required by NJSA 104-14
The purpose of closed meeting minutes is not merely to inform the public of whatoccurred during the private session but also to create a record for the Board membersthemselves A Board member who is newly elected in 2012 should be able by referringsolely to the minutes to figure out what issues the Board addressed during any previouslyheld closed meeting This hypothetical Board member after reading the July 28 2010closed minutes could not possibly figure out which employees or officials Mr Stern wastalking about
Better practice would be to record closed minutes that are much morecomprehensive but to redact that material that must be shielded from public view Forexample the minutes could have said
Mr Stern addressed the Board of Education about the habitualtardiness of 2nd grade teacher Mary Doe and her propensity to eatlibrary paste and scream hysterically during fire drills Herecommended that she be sent for psychiatric evaluation
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 38 of 77
5
Of course if a member of the public requested these hypothetical minutes the Boardmay need to redact them in order to protect privacy interests The point however is thatregardless of whether unredacted closed meeting minutes are ever released to the publicthey should contain sufficient details so that the Board members themselves can monthsor years later know what was discussed
Attached as Exhibit pages 5 ndash 9 is an order recently entered in Schmidt et al v City of
Gloucester City et al Docket No CAM-L-1287-11 As you can see paraA(3) supports my position
that the Boardrsquos minutes are not ldquoreasonably comprehensiblerdquo as required by law
Conclusion
Since some public bodies do not take my requests for Meetings Act compliance seriously
I regret having to inform the Board that I will sue for declaratory and injunctive relief in
accordance with NJSA 104-16 unless I receive assurances from the Boardmdashwithin a few days
after its May 10 2011 meetingmdashthat it will work in good faith to improve the amount of
information in both its closed session resolutions and minutes If the Boardrsquos agenda is already
set for the May 10 2011 meeting please at least acknowledge this letter and let me know the
date of the meeting at which it will be considered
Thank you very much for your attention to this matter I look forward to hearing from
you
Sincerely
John Paff
cc Philip E Stern Esq w enc (via e-mail to psternasgllawcom )
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 39 of 77
RUNNEMEDE BOARD OF EDUCATIONRESOLUTION NO ___________
AUTHORIZING EXECUTIVE SESSION
WHEREAS while the Sen Byron M Baer Open Public Meetings Act (NJSA 104-6 et seq) requires allmeetings of the Runnemede Board of Education to be held in public NJSA 104-12(b) sets forth nine (9)types of matters that may lawfully be discussed in ldquoExecutive Sessionrdquo ie without the public beingpermitted to attend and
WHEREAS the Runnemede Board of Education has determined that _____ (insert number) issues arepermitted by NJSA 104-12(b) to be discussed without the public in attendance shall be discussed duringan Executive Session to be held on _________________________ 20____ at _______ PM and
WHEREAS the nine (9) exceptions to public meetings set forth in NJSA 104-12(b) are listed below andnext to each exception is a box within which the number of issues to be privately discussed that fall withinthat exception shall be written and after each exception is a space where additional information that willdisclose as much information about the discussion as possible without undermining the purpose of theexception shall be written
ldquo(1) Any matter which by express provision of Federal law State statute or rule of courtshall be rendered confidential or excluded from public discussionrdquo The legal citation to theprovision(s) at issue is__________________________ and the nature of the matter described asspecifically as possible without undermining the need for confidentiality is _______________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(2) Any matter in which the release of information would impair a right to receive fundsfrom the federal governmentrdquo The nature of the matter described as specifically as possiblewithout undermining the need for confidentiality is _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(3) Any material the disclosure of which constitutes an unwarranted invasion of individualprivacy such as any records data reports recommendations or other personal material ofany educational training social service medical health custodial child protectionrehabilitation legal defense welfare housing relocation insurance and similar program orinstitution operated by a public body pertaining to any specific individual admitted to orserved by such institution or program including but not limited to information relative tothe individuals personal and family circumstances and any material pertaining toadmission discharge treatment progress or condition of any individual unless theindividual concerned (or in the case of a minor or incompetent his guardian) shall requestin writing that the same be disclosed publiclyrdquo The nature of the matter described asspecifically as possible without undermining the need for confidentiality is______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(4) Any collective bargaining agreement or the terms and conditions of which are proposedfor inclusion in any collective bargaining agreement including the negotiation of terms andconditions with employees or representatives of employees of the public bodyrdquo The collectivebargaining contract(s) discussed are between the Board and ____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Exhibit Page 1Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 40 of 77
ldquo(5) Any matter involving the purchase lease or acquisition of real property with publicfunds the setting of bank rates or investment of public funds where it could adversely affectthe public interest if discussion of such matters were disclosedrdquo The nature of the matterdescribed as specifically as possible without undermining the need for confidentiality is____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(6) Any tactics and techniques utilized in protecting the safety and property of the publicprovided that their disclosure could impair such protection Any investigations of violationsor possible violations of the lawrdquo The nature of the matter described as specifically as possiblewithout undermining the need for confidentiality is ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(7) Any pending or anticipated litigation or contract negotiation in which the public body isor may become a party Any matters falling within the attorney-client privilege to the extentthat confidentiality is required in order for the attorney to exercise his ethicalduties as a lawyerrdquo The parties to and docket numbers of each item of litigation andor theparties to each contract discussed are __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ andnature of the discussion described as specifically as possible without undermining the need forconfidentiality is ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(8) Any matter involving the employment appointment termination of employment termsand conditions of employment evaluation of the performance promotion or disciplining ofany specific prospective public officer or employee or current public officer or employeeemployed or appointed by the public body unless all individual employees or appointees whoserights could be adversely affected request in writing that such matter or matters be discussed ata public meetingrdquo Subject to the balancing of the publicrsquos interest and the employeersquos privacyrights under South Jersey Publishing Co v New Jersey Expressway Authority 124 NJ 478 theemployee(s) and nature of the discussion described as specifically as possible withoutundermining the need for confidentiality are _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(9) Any deliberation of a public body occurring after a public hearing that may result in theimposition of a specific civil penalty upon the responding party or the suspension or loss of alicense or permit belonging to the responding party as a result of an act of omission forwhich the responding party bears responsibilityrdquo The nature of the matter described asspecifically as possible without undermining the need for confidentiality is______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
WHEREAS the length of the Executive Session is estimated to be ________ minutes after which the publicmeeting of the Board shall (circle one) reconvene and immediately adjourn or reconvene and proceed withbusiness
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Runnemede Board of Education will go into ExecutiveSession for only the above stated reasons
Exhibit Page 2Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 41 of 77
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board hereby declares that its discussion of the aforementionedsubject(s) will be made public at a time when the publicrsquos interest in disclosure is greater than any privacy orgovernmental interest being protected from disclosure For each of the above items the estimated date bywhich such disclosure can be made andor the occurrence that needs to take place before disclosure can bemade are listed below (attach separate sheet if necessary)
Subject of Discussion Estimated Date Necessary Occurrence
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Clerk at the present public meeting shall read aloud enough ofthis resolution so that members of the public in attendance can understand as precisely as possible thenature of the matters that will privately discussed
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Clerk on the next business day following this meeting shallfurnish a copy of this resolution to any member of the public who requests one at the fees allowed byNJSA 471A-1 et seq
_________________________________Board President
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS ATRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTIONAPPROVED BY THE RUNNEMEDE BOARD OF EDUCATION AT ITSPUBLIC MEETING HELD ON ______________________20___
_______________________________________Board Secretary
Exhibit Page 3Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 42 of 77
Exhibit Page 4Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 43 of 77
Exhibit Page 5Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 44 of 77
Exhibit Page 6Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 45 of 77
Exhibit Page 7Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 46 of 77
Exhibit Page 8Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 47 of 77
Exhibit Page 9Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 48 of 77
Subject Records RequestFrom John Paff ltpaffpoboxcomgtDate Sat 07 May 2011 161444 -0400To vcarmodyrunnemedeschoolsorgCC psternasgllawcom
Ms Carmody
Please accept this e-mail as my request for government records inaccordance with the Open Public Records Act (OPRA) and the commonlaw right of access Please respond and send all responsivedocuments to me via e-mail at paffpoboxcom If e-mail is notpossible please fax responses and responsive records to me at908-325-0129 Also I would appreciate it if you wouldacknowledge your receipt of this e-mail
Background
In response to a records request I recently received redactedexecutive session minutes for the following dates July 28 2010(first session) August 26 2010 February 2 2011 February 232011 (two sessions) and March 2 2011 Although Mr Stern providedme with a sheet entitled Documents Exempt From OPRA request thatpurports to explain these redactions I am still unclear as to whythe matter was redacted and whether it was lawfully redacted
First I dont understand references such as NJSA 471A-11(12)(c) The version of OPRA that I have (plus every other oneIve seen) does not have internal numbers within NJSA471A-11 Am I correct that NJSA 471A-11(12)(c) isintended to refer to the exemption for records in connection withcollective negotiations including documents and statements ofstrategy or negotiating position and that NJSA 471A-11(7)is intended to refer to any record within the attorney-clientprivilege This paragraph shall not be construed as exempting fromaccess attorney or consultant bills or invoices except that suchbills or invoices may be redacted to remove any informationprotected by the attorney-client privilege Please advise
Second even if I correctly corresponded the claimed exemptions tothe OPRA statute I have no way of knowing whether the mattersredacted are actually exempt from access When a custodiansuppresses any portion of any requested record NJSA471A-5(g) requires him or her to state the ldquospecific basisrdquo foreach suppressed element Beyond stating the ldquospecific basisrdquo foreach suppressed element he or she is required to ldquoproduce
Records Request
1 of 2 622011 810 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 49 of 77
specific reliable evidence sufficient to meet a statutorilyrecognized basis for confidentialityrdquo Courier News v HunterdonCounty Prosecutorrsquos Office 358 NJ Super 373 382-83 (App Div2003) Further he or she must explain each suppression in amanner that ldquowill enable other parties to assess the applicabilityof the privilege or protectionrdquo Paff v New Jersey Department ofLabor Board of Review 379 NJ Super 346 354-55 (2005)(quoting R 410-2(e))
Records requested
Runnemede Board of Education minutes for the following dates July28 2010 (728 pm session only) August 26 2010 February 22011 February 23 2011 (both sessions) and March 2 2011 Iwould like these minutes redacted as narrowly as possible if atall For each redaction I request a written explanation thatmeets the requirements of the case law cited above
cc Phil Stern
Records Request
2 of 2 622011 810 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 50 of 77
Subject Re Fwd Runnemede Board of Education Open PublicMeetings ActFrom John Paff ltpaffpoboxcomgtDate Mon 09 May 2011 134726 -0400To Nancy Ward ltnwardrunnemedeschoolsorggt
Thank you
On 592011 116 PM Nancy Ward wrote
Mr Paff
The Board has named me Custodian of Records Please direct allfuturecommunication to me The May 10 2011 meeting is theRe-organization ofthe Runnemede Board of Education The agenda is set and is verycomprehensive I intend to defer the letter and any discussionregardingits content to the next regular meeting the date of which willbe setat the re-organization tomorrow night In keeping with thedistrictsmeeting pattern that will be May 25 2011
Nancy BWard EdD
Superintendent of Schools
-----Original Message-----From John PaffSent 572011 42300 PMTo nwardrunnemedeschoolsorgCc vcarmodyrunnemedeschoolsorg psternasgllawcomSubject Fwd Runnemede Board of Education Open Public MeetingsAct
Here is another e-mail in case my original one should have beendirected to Ms Ward and not Ms Carmody
JP
-------- Original Message --------Subject Runnemede Board of Education Open Public Meetings ActDate Sat 07 May 2011 152319 -0400From John Paff
Re Fwd Runnemede Board of Education Open Public Meetings Act
1 of 2 622011 811 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 51 of 77
Reply-To paffpoboxcomTo vcarmodyrunnemedeschoolsorg psternasgllawcom
Ms Carmody and Mr Stern
Attached is a letter that I would like the Board to consider atits May10 2011 meeting Would you please a) acknowledge receipt of theletterand b) distribute it to all the Board members
Note that the last paragraph of the letter indicates that I willfilesuit against the Board if the issues in the letter arentaddressedSo if the Boards agenda for the May 10th meeting is so tightthat myletter cannot be accommodated please advise me of such andprovide ameeting date where my letter will be addressed so that I knowthat I amnot being ignored
Thank you
John Paff ChairmanNew Jersey Libertarian PartysOpen Government Advocacy Project
Re Fwd Runnemede Board of Education Open Public Meetings Act
2 of 2 622011 811 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 52 of 77
Subject OPRA RequestFrom Philip Stern ltpsternasgllawcomgtDate Fri 20 May 2011 161015 -0500To paffpoboxcom ltpaffpoboxcomgtCC Nancy Ward ltnwardrunnemedeschoolsorggt
Mr Paff please find attached to this email a response to your request forbusiness records Please note that in providing you with the attachedrecords the Runnemede Borough Board of Education waives no rightsregarding the attorney-client privilege Do not hesitate to call me if youhave any questions Phil Stern
Philip E SternAdams Stern Gutierrez amp Lattiboudere LLCThe Legal Center1037 Raymond Blvd Suite 710Newark New Jersey 07102(973) 735-2742 (office telephone)(201) 914-2415 (cellular telephone)(973) 735-2743 (office telefax)
May 20 Paff responsepdf
Content-DescriptionMay 20 Paffresponsepdf
Content-Type applicationpdf
Content-Encoding base64
OPRA Request
1 of 1 622011 815 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 53 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 54 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 55 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 56 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 57 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 58 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 59 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 60 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 61 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 62 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 63 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 64 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 65 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 66 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 67 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 68 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 69 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 70 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 71 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 72 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 73 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 74 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 75 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 76 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 77 of 77
- Civil Complaint
- Exhibits
-
was the local high school teacher metioned in another post Runnemede schools arefantastic and maybe the new people running for election will get some answers andmake some changes And maybe the BOE member who was mentioned by employees asbeing the reason why there could be a possible lawsuit should just resign I understandadmin make good money but they also need to be accountable for their actions and ifthe BA made a hostile environment and was supported by one BOE member both shouldbe gonenot just the BA352011 33207 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagecookmom wroteWhere is Gov Christies veto power352011 30321 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagecookmom wroteThis all happened with a local police officer and a FOP member and local high schoolteacher and member of the NJEA on the board The Runnemede Board is looking alotlike the DRPA and was this group picked by the new Mayor352011 30042 PMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagesickofpolsnj wroteThe real truth is the Board of Education member and Brazelton and the unethicalsituation that THEY created The questionable contracts and underhanded deals There isa certain Board Member that hopes that this ends here well it doesnt There is not aTeacher or employee in Runnemede Schools that would defend Brazelton same goes forSomerdale And many are willing to bring out MANY of the things that Brazelton did todestroy the district The ENTIRE Runnemede School Community is thrilled that Brazeltonis gone Snoopysam is clearly one of two people Kelly or the Board Member shouldwe name names Hows that Mayors race looking352011 114254 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser ImageShopsteward wrote$99465 plus benefits How much does she pay for her share of those benefitsor are they free to her Her replacement only works 24 hours a week are we being toldthat she got that much money for a part time job What is the matter with theidiots that hired her to begin withNo one should get that kind of money for a part timeThat is an awful lot of money for that kind of job We should not be surprised at all Thiskind of thing is everywhere in Camden CountyIts the NORMAL way of doingbusiness352011 113922 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagelookfar111 wroteYep same old story hire someone for $98000 when 10 equally qualified people woulddo it for 60k with a 20 year top out at 75 k Then a sweetheart adios gift And the cherry
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 31 of 77
on top Another tax increase for the people God I hate what the democrat machinehave done to this once great state352011 111649 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser ImageSnoopysam wrotesickofpolsnj you must be on ot those employees that Brazelton held accountable forHER actions You are right there is so much more to this story and when the real truthscome out there will be some emplopyeesadministratorsboard members hanging theirheads in shame Talk about wasting taxpayer dollars take a look at some of the lazyincompetent employees that Brazelton had to deal withand their HUGE mistakes thathad to be corrected which cost the taxpayers thousands upon thousands of dollars352011 94250 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagesickofpolsnj wroteYou are exactly correct A teacher would never get a sweatheart deal like this I wonderwhich Board Member it was that was mentioned in that letter Did you read the blog thatthis all came out on it has way more details than this articlehttpdansviewrunnemedewordpresscom352011 92934 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagesickofpolsnj wroteOnly thing is Runnemede never had these issues Somerdale had the same EXACT issueswith Brazelton Administrators arent allowed to comment however talk to the teachersand employees off record they will tell you all about Kelly352011 92726 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagesickofpolsnj wroteThere is so much more to this story I hope the CP will run a follow up 1 Look into therealtionship and hiring surrounding Doug the maintenance supervisor 2 Check intoBrazeltons past employment Somerdale Schools 3 Brazelton is rumored to be hired atthe completion of the settlement in Deptford 4 Look into unethical practices between aBoard Member and Brazelton 5 And what about the other Board member that wasrecently charged with a serious crime352011 92315 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imageicallbullschit wroteOnce again the government tries to pin their mistakes on an individual when they screwup royally What the paper fails to report is the other side Maybe years and years ofmismanagement and patronage were uncovered and it became a hostile environmentwhen people got called on their actions and the same old routine was stopped Maybethe school board realized it would be cheaper to pay one than to pay many for theirmistakes Maybe the school board was willing to pay in order to keep their dirty littlesecrets covered up Maybe the resident should look deeper into the actions of the schoolboard and the rest of the administration Maybe I am wrong but it seems that the board
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 32 of 77
got called on some issues and now they are attacking one individual to cover theirtracks They seem to be acting like the GREAT WIZARD OF OZ Pay no attention to theidiots behind the curtain we are the all powerful and all knowing school board Pull backthe curtain people because there are people behind there that are faking their waythrough and going to wind up costing the district millions Just saying352011 85642 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagecookmom wroteSchool board President Colleen Kurth said it was much easier to go with a separationagreement than pay more legal fees She compared paying Brazelton to paying ateacher out sick while a substitute fills in The job just has to go on Kurth said I amconfused A teacher out SICK is NOT the same as a HOSTILE work enviorment How cana medical condition be compared to a person being accused of a hostile workenviorment A teacher would be REQUIRED to use their sick days~ since this is beingcompared to an illness ~was Brazelton REQUIRED to give up her sickvacation pay orwas that part of the dealWas she also paid for those days Wouldnt we all love to becollecting a salary from two towns As now she is being paid by Runnemde AND acurrent SCHOOL district where she is currently employed THIS is the waste in ourSchool districts352011 83552 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imageneocon wroteShe is part of the Protected Classes All you need to know is that she is better thanyou so just keep moveing along Nothing to see here352011 81912 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report Abuse
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 33 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 34 of 77
New Jersey Libertarian PartyOpen Government Advocacy Project
John Paff Chairman
PO Box 5424
Somerset NJ 08875-5424
Phone 732-873-1251 - Fax 908-325-0129
Email lpsmcpoboxcom
May 7 2011
Hon Colleen Kurth President and members of the
Runnemede Board of Education
505 W Third Ave
Runnemede NJ 08078 (via e-mail to vcarmodyrunnemedeschoolsorg )
Dear President Kurth and Board members
I write both individually and on behalf the New Jersey Libertarian Partys Open
Government Advocacy Project to comment on 1) the manner in which the Board of Education
goes into nonpublic (ie executive or closed) session and 2) the level of detail contained within
the Boardrsquos executive session minutes
Issue 1 Executive Session resolutions
As you are aware the Senator Byron M Baer Open Public Meetings Act requires public
bodies such as the Runnemede Board of Education to publicly pass a resolution before
excluding the public from a meeting The statute that requires the resolution states
NJSA 104-13mdashClosed meetings resolution to conduct
No public body shall exclude the public from any meeting to discuss any
matter described in subsection 7 b (104-12) until the public body shall
first adopt a resolution at a meeting to which the public shall be admitted
a Stating the general nature of the subject to be discussed and
b Stating as precisely as possible the time when and the circumstances
under which the discussion conducted in closed session of the public body
can be disclosed to the public
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 35 of 77
2
By way of a recent records request I received resolutions which purport to authorize
executive sessions intended to be held by the Board of Education on July 28 2010 (2 sessions)
August 20 2010 February 2 1011 February 23 2011 (2 sessions) and March 2 2011 Those
resolutions which are virtually identical to each other state
Executive Session to discuss student matters personnel contractual and
legal matters [time and a statement as to whether action will be
taken]
[identity of maker of motion etc]
Resolved that pursuant to Section 8 of the Public Meetings Act the public
shall be excluded from that portion of the meeting involving the discussion
of personnel legal and contractual matters Further resolved that
discussion of such subject matters discussed in Executive Session can be
disclosed to public upon official action if any at the conclusion of the
executive session or at a public session at some later date
I dont think that this form of resolution satisfies NJSA 104-13 because it gives the
public no real sense of what is being privately discussed1 To paraphrase the highest court of of
another state a body which only announces ldquolegal mattersrdquo or ldquopersonnel negotiationsrdquo for
going into executive session has said nothing It might has well have stated to the audience
ldquoLadies and gentlemen we are going into executive sessionrdquo and stopped there Hinds County
Board of Supervisors v Common Cause of Mississippi 551 So2d 107 114 (MS 1989)
Of course there can be no dispute that the Board of Education often has legitimate
reasons to meet in nonpublic session Among these reasons is the need to prevent the adverse
parties in litigation or contract negotiations from gaining an unfair advantage and to allow
members of the governing body to debate and deliberate personnel matters without public
scrutiny or participation But the need to discuss matters privately should not prevent the
public from being informed as precisely as possible of the topics that are being privately
discussed
For example suppose that Runnemede Board is being sued by a Mr Jones who was
injured after he slipped and fell on what he claims to be negligently maintained school
property Since the lawsuit is already a public record there is no public purpose served by
vaguely describing a private discussion of it as ldquostudent matters personnel contractual and
legal mattersrdquo Rather the resolution should at the very least describe the private discussion as
1 In January 2007 when I most recently litigated this issue Middlesex County Superior Court Judge Alexander P
Waugh issued a written decision in which he agreed with other court decisions that closed session resolutions
should contain as much information as is consistent with full public knowledge without doing any harm to the
public interest Judge Waughs decision and other case documents are on the Web at
httpogtfarchiveorgOGTFMonroeBOEWebreadypdf
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 36 of 77
3
ldquoDiscussion of slip and fall negligence suit Jones v Runnemede Board Docket No CAM-L-
012345-11rdquo This way the public has a very good sense of what the Boardrsquos private discussion is
about while the ability of the Board to develop its lawsuit strategy is not undermined
Using the same example suppose that Jonesrsquo attorney sent the Boardrsquos attorney an offer
to fully settle the lawsuit upon the Boardrsquos payment of $20000 While the Board would
obviously need to discuss how to respond to the offer in private lest Jones or his attorney
would be in the audience witnessing the discussion there is no reason why the public cannot be
informed in the NJSA 104-13 resolution that the Board will meet in private to discuss ldquoa
settlement offer received from the Plaintiff in the slip and fall negligence suit known as Jones v
Runnemede Board Docket No CAM-L-012345-11 in which the Plaintiff offers to settle the suit
in exchange for the Board paying him $20000rdquo While it may initially seem that this would
provide ldquotoo muchrdquo information to the public this concern disappears once it is realized that
the sole purpose of the exception2 that allows litigation matters to be discussed in private is to
keep the adverse party to the litigation in the dark regarding the Boardrsquos position3 Since in this
example the adverse party (ie Jones) already knows that he offered to settle the lawsuit for
$20000 there is no legitimate reason why the public should not also know of the tendered
settlement offer
As another example suppose that a personnel matter such as whether or not a Mrs
Smith a public works employee should be disciplined because of repeatedly arriving late to
work is to be discussed in closed session In such a case the amount of detail set forth in the
NJSA 104-13 resolution should correspond to the amount of detail that the Board and its
attorney predict will be publicly disclosed in the closed meetingrsquos minutes when those minutes
are made public
The standard that the Board is to use when determining how much information about a
personnel matter is to be disclosed in the closed sessionrsquos minutes is set forth in South Jersey
Publishing Company Inc v New Jersey Expressway Authority 124 NJ 478 (1991) That
standard is that a) the public needs information if it is properly fulfill its role of evaluating the
wisdom of governmental action or a decision not to act b) that New Jerseys strong public
policy requires that a public bodyrsquos actions and decisions to not act be disclosed in the bodys
closed meeting minutes along with sufficient facts and information to permit the public to
understand and appraise the reasonableness of the bodys determination and c) to the extent a
cognizable privacy interest may be compromised by the required disclosure the extent of
disclosure may be modified through redactions of the minutes provided the public interest in
disclosure is not subverted
2 NJSA104-12(b)(7) is to prevent adverse parties to litigation and contracts from learning the details of the
public bodyrsquos negotiation tactics and litigation strategy3 See the discussion in Paff v Washington Township Docket No MER-L-2205-07 and Nevin v Asbury Park City
Board 2005 WL 2847974 (App Div November 1 2005) which are on-line at
httpogtfarchiveorgOGTFWashingtonpdf (Nevin begins at page 44 of the PDF file at the link)
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 37 of 77
4
Thus regardless of whether the Board disciplines Ms Smith or chooses to not impose
discipline due to her lateness the outcome should be recorded in the closed meeting minutes
The question of whether that entry in the minutes should be redacted before the minutes are
made public requires a balancing of Ms Smithrsquos interest in keeping the disciplinary matter
private against the publicrsquos interest in effectively monitoring the Board If the Board with
counselrsquos advice determines after balancing these interests that the outcome will be published
unredacted in the closed sessionrsquos minutes (ie if the minutes will disclose to the public eg that
ldquoMs Smith was suspended for three days on account of her habitual latenessrdquo) then the exact
nature of the matter (ie that ldquothe Board will discuss disciplining Ms Smith for excessive
latenessrdquo) should be set forth in the closed meetingrsquos NJSA 104-13 resolution Inversely if the
Board determines that Ms Smithrsquos privacy interest exceeds the publicrsquos right to know then less
information (eg ldquothe Board will discuss disciplining an employee for excessive latenessrdquo)
should be set forth in the closed meetingrsquos NJSA 104-13 resolution
In other words if the officer or employee being discussed doesnt have a privacy interest
sufficient to withstand a citizens request for the executive session minutes why should not the
public know the topic of the executive session prior to it occurring
Irsquove attached as Exhibit pages 1 -3 is a model resolution that I would like the Board to
use in the future
Issue 2 Executive Session minutes
Attached as Exhibit Page 4 as an example are the Boardrsquos July 28 2010 executive session
minutes It is troubling that a meeting that lasted over an hour is being summed up in a single
sentence ldquoMr Phil Stern addressed the Board of Education about personnel issuesrdquo These
minutes are not ldquoreasonably comprehensiblerdquo as required by NJSA 104-14
The purpose of closed meeting minutes is not merely to inform the public of whatoccurred during the private session but also to create a record for the Board membersthemselves A Board member who is newly elected in 2012 should be able by referringsolely to the minutes to figure out what issues the Board addressed during any previouslyheld closed meeting This hypothetical Board member after reading the July 28 2010closed minutes could not possibly figure out which employees or officials Mr Stern wastalking about
Better practice would be to record closed minutes that are much morecomprehensive but to redact that material that must be shielded from public view Forexample the minutes could have said
Mr Stern addressed the Board of Education about the habitualtardiness of 2nd grade teacher Mary Doe and her propensity to eatlibrary paste and scream hysterically during fire drills Herecommended that she be sent for psychiatric evaluation
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 38 of 77
5
Of course if a member of the public requested these hypothetical minutes the Boardmay need to redact them in order to protect privacy interests The point however is thatregardless of whether unredacted closed meeting minutes are ever released to the publicthey should contain sufficient details so that the Board members themselves can monthsor years later know what was discussed
Attached as Exhibit pages 5 ndash 9 is an order recently entered in Schmidt et al v City of
Gloucester City et al Docket No CAM-L-1287-11 As you can see paraA(3) supports my position
that the Boardrsquos minutes are not ldquoreasonably comprehensiblerdquo as required by law
Conclusion
Since some public bodies do not take my requests for Meetings Act compliance seriously
I regret having to inform the Board that I will sue for declaratory and injunctive relief in
accordance with NJSA 104-16 unless I receive assurances from the Boardmdashwithin a few days
after its May 10 2011 meetingmdashthat it will work in good faith to improve the amount of
information in both its closed session resolutions and minutes If the Boardrsquos agenda is already
set for the May 10 2011 meeting please at least acknowledge this letter and let me know the
date of the meeting at which it will be considered
Thank you very much for your attention to this matter I look forward to hearing from
you
Sincerely
John Paff
cc Philip E Stern Esq w enc (via e-mail to psternasgllawcom )
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 39 of 77
RUNNEMEDE BOARD OF EDUCATIONRESOLUTION NO ___________
AUTHORIZING EXECUTIVE SESSION
WHEREAS while the Sen Byron M Baer Open Public Meetings Act (NJSA 104-6 et seq) requires allmeetings of the Runnemede Board of Education to be held in public NJSA 104-12(b) sets forth nine (9)types of matters that may lawfully be discussed in ldquoExecutive Sessionrdquo ie without the public beingpermitted to attend and
WHEREAS the Runnemede Board of Education has determined that _____ (insert number) issues arepermitted by NJSA 104-12(b) to be discussed without the public in attendance shall be discussed duringan Executive Session to be held on _________________________ 20____ at _______ PM and
WHEREAS the nine (9) exceptions to public meetings set forth in NJSA 104-12(b) are listed below andnext to each exception is a box within which the number of issues to be privately discussed that fall withinthat exception shall be written and after each exception is a space where additional information that willdisclose as much information about the discussion as possible without undermining the purpose of theexception shall be written
ldquo(1) Any matter which by express provision of Federal law State statute or rule of courtshall be rendered confidential or excluded from public discussionrdquo The legal citation to theprovision(s) at issue is__________________________ and the nature of the matter described asspecifically as possible without undermining the need for confidentiality is _______________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(2) Any matter in which the release of information would impair a right to receive fundsfrom the federal governmentrdquo The nature of the matter described as specifically as possiblewithout undermining the need for confidentiality is _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(3) Any material the disclosure of which constitutes an unwarranted invasion of individualprivacy such as any records data reports recommendations or other personal material ofany educational training social service medical health custodial child protectionrehabilitation legal defense welfare housing relocation insurance and similar program orinstitution operated by a public body pertaining to any specific individual admitted to orserved by such institution or program including but not limited to information relative tothe individuals personal and family circumstances and any material pertaining toadmission discharge treatment progress or condition of any individual unless theindividual concerned (or in the case of a minor or incompetent his guardian) shall requestin writing that the same be disclosed publiclyrdquo The nature of the matter described asspecifically as possible without undermining the need for confidentiality is______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(4) Any collective bargaining agreement or the terms and conditions of which are proposedfor inclusion in any collective bargaining agreement including the negotiation of terms andconditions with employees or representatives of employees of the public bodyrdquo The collectivebargaining contract(s) discussed are between the Board and ____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Exhibit Page 1Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 40 of 77
ldquo(5) Any matter involving the purchase lease or acquisition of real property with publicfunds the setting of bank rates or investment of public funds where it could adversely affectthe public interest if discussion of such matters were disclosedrdquo The nature of the matterdescribed as specifically as possible without undermining the need for confidentiality is____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(6) Any tactics and techniques utilized in protecting the safety and property of the publicprovided that their disclosure could impair such protection Any investigations of violationsor possible violations of the lawrdquo The nature of the matter described as specifically as possiblewithout undermining the need for confidentiality is ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(7) Any pending or anticipated litigation or contract negotiation in which the public body isor may become a party Any matters falling within the attorney-client privilege to the extentthat confidentiality is required in order for the attorney to exercise his ethicalduties as a lawyerrdquo The parties to and docket numbers of each item of litigation andor theparties to each contract discussed are __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ andnature of the discussion described as specifically as possible without undermining the need forconfidentiality is ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(8) Any matter involving the employment appointment termination of employment termsand conditions of employment evaluation of the performance promotion or disciplining ofany specific prospective public officer or employee or current public officer or employeeemployed or appointed by the public body unless all individual employees or appointees whoserights could be adversely affected request in writing that such matter or matters be discussed ata public meetingrdquo Subject to the balancing of the publicrsquos interest and the employeersquos privacyrights under South Jersey Publishing Co v New Jersey Expressway Authority 124 NJ 478 theemployee(s) and nature of the discussion described as specifically as possible withoutundermining the need for confidentiality are _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(9) Any deliberation of a public body occurring after a public hearing that may result in theimposition of a specific civil penalty upon the responding party or the suspension or loss of alicense or permit belonging to the responding party as a result of an act of omission forwhich the responding party bears responsibilityrdquo The nature of the matter described asspecifically as possible without undermining the need for confidentiality is______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
WHEREAS the length of the Executive Session is estimated to be ________ minutes after which the publicmeeting of the Board shall (circle one) reconvene and immediately adjourn or reconvene and proceed withbusiness
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Runnemede Board of Education will go into ExecutiveSession for only the above stated reasons
Exhibit Page 2Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 41 of 77
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board hereby declares that its discussion of the aforementionedsubject(s) will be made public at a time when the publicrsquos interest in disclosure is greater than any privacy orgovernmental interest being protected from disclosure For each of the above items the estimated date bywhich such disclosure can be made andor the occurrence that needs to take place before disclosure can bemade are listed below (attach separate sheet if necessary)
Subject of Discussion Estimated Date Necessary Occurrence
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Clerk at the present public meeting shall read aloud enough ofthis resolution so that members of the public in attendance can understand as precisely as possible thenature of the matters that will privately discussed
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Clerk on the next business day following this meeting shallfurnish a copy of this resolution to any member of the public who requests one at the fees allowed byNJSA 471A-1 et seq
_________________________________Board President
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS ATRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTIONAPPROVED BY THE RUNNEMEDE BOARD OF EDUCATION AT ITSPUBLIC MEETING HELD ON ______________________20___
_______________________________________Board Secretary
Exhibit Page 3Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 42 of 77
Exhibit Page 4Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 43 of 77
Exhibit Page 5Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 44 of 77
Exhibit Page 6Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 45 of 77
Exhibit Page 7Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 46 of 77
Exhibit Page 8Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 47 of 77
Exhibit Page 9Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 48 of 77
Subject Records RequestFrom John Paff ltpaffpoboxcomgtDate Sat 07 May 2011 161444 -0400To vcarmodyrunnemedeschoolsorgCC psternasgllawcom
Ms Carmody
Please accept this e-mail as my request for government records inaccordance with the Open Public Records Act (OPRA) and the commonlaw right of access Please respond and send all responsivedocuments to me via e-mail at paffpoboxcom If e-mail is notpossible please fax responses and responsive records to me at908-325-0129 Also I would appreciate it if you wouldacknowledge your receipt of this e-mail
Background
In response to a records request I recently received redactedexecutive session minutes for the following dates July 28 2010(first session) August 26 2010 February 2 2011 February 232011 (two sessions) and March 2 2011 Although Mr Stern providedme with a sheet entitled Documents Exempt From OPRA request thatpurports to explain these redactions I am still unclear as to whythe matter was redacted and whether it was lawfully redacted
First I dont understand references such as NJSA 471A-11(12)(c) The version of OPRA that I have (plus every other oneIve seen) does not have internal numbers within NJSA471A-11 Am I correct that NJSA 471A-11(12)(c) isintended to refer to the exemption for records in connection withcollective negotiations including documents and statements ofstrategy or negotiating position and that NJSA 471A-11(7)is intended to refer to any record within the attorney-clientprivilege This paragraph shall not be construed as exempting fromaccess attorney or consultant bills or invoices except that suchbills or invoices may be redacted to remove any informationprotected by the attorney-client privilege Please advise
Second even if I correctly corresponded the claimed exemptions tothe OPRA statute I have no way of knowing whether the mattersredacted are actually exempt from access When a custodiansuppresses any portion of any requested record NJSA471A-5(g) requires him or her to state the ldquospecific basisrdquo foreach suppressed element Beyond stating the ldquospecific basisrdquo foreach suppressed element he or she is required to ldquoproduce
Records Request
1 of 2 622011 810 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 49 of 77
specific reliable evidence sufficient to meet a statutorilyrecognized basis for confidentialityrdquo Courier News v HunterdonCounty Prosecutorrsquos Office 358 NJ Super 373 382-83 (App Div2003) Further he or she must explain each suppression in amanner that ldquowill enable other parties to assess the applicabilityof the privilege or protectionrdquo Paff v New Jersey Department ofLabor Board of Review 379 NJ Super 346 354-55 (2005)(quoting R 410-2(e))
Records requested
Runnemede Board of Education minutes for the following dates July28 2010 (728 pm session only) August 26 2010 February 22011 February 23 2011 (both sessions) and March 2 2011 Iwould like these minutes redacted as narrowly as possible if atall For each redaction I request a written explanation thatmeets the requirements of the case law cited above
cc Phil Stern
Records Request
2 of 2 622011 810 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 50 of 77
Subject Re Fwd Runnemede Board of Education Open PublicMeetings ActFrom John Paff ltpaffpoboxcomgtDate Mon 09 May 2011 134726 -0400To Nancy Ward ltnwardrunnemedeschoolsorggt
Thank you
On 592011 116 PM Nancy Ward wrote
Mr Paff
The Board has named me Custodian of Records Please direct allfuturecommunication to me The May 10 2011 meeting is theRe-organization ofthe Runnemede Board of Education The agenda is set and is verycomprehensive I intend to defer the letter and any discussionregardingits content to the next regular meeting the date of which willbe setat the re-organization tomorrow night In keeping with thedistrictsmeeting pattern that will be May 25 2011
Nancy BWard EdD
Superintendent of Schools
-----Original Message-----From John PaffSent 572011 42300 PMTo nwardrunnemedeschoolsorgCc vcarmodyrunnemedeschoolsorg psternasgllawcomSubject Fwd Runnemede Board of Education Open Public MeetingsAct
Here is another e-mail in case my original one should have beendirected to Ms Ward and not Ms Carmody
JP
-------- Original Message --------Subject Runnemede Board of Education Open Public Meetings ActDate Sat 07 May 2011 152319 -0400From John Paff
Re Fwd Runnemede Board of Education Open Public Meetings Act
1 of 2 622011 811 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 51 of 77
Reply-To paffpoboxcomTo vcarmodyrunnemedeschoolsorg psternasgllawcom
Ms Carmody and Mr Stern
Attached is a letter that I would like the Board to consider atits May10 2011 meeting Would you please a) acknowledge receipt of theletterand b) distribute it to all the Board members
Note that the last paragraph of the letter indicates that I willfilesuit against the Board if the issues in the letter arentaddressedSo if the Boards agenda for the May 10th meeting is so tightthat myletter cannot be accommodated please advise me of such andprovide ameeting date where my letter will be addressed so that I knowthat I amnot being ignored
Thank you
John Paff ChairmanNew Jersey Libertarian PartysOpen Government Advocacy Project
Re Fwd Runnemede Board of Education Open Public Meetings Act
2 of 2 622011 811 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 52 of 77
Subject OPRA RequestFrom Philip Stern ltpsternasgllawcomgtDate Fri 20 May 2011 161015 -0500To paffpoboxcom ltpaffpoboxcomgtCC Nancy Ward ltnwardrunnemedeschoolsorggt
Mr Paff please find attached to this email a response to your request forbusiness records Please note that in providing you with the attachedrecords the Runnemede Borough Board of Education waives no rightsregarding the attorney-client privilege Do not hesitate to call me if youhave any questions Phil Stern
Philip E SternAdams Stern Gutierrez amp Lattiboudere LLCThe Legal Center1037 Raymond Blvd Suite 710Newark New Jersey 07102(973) 735-2742 (office telephone)(201) 914-2415 (cellular telephone)(973) 735-2743 (office telefax)
May 20 Paff responsepdf
Content-DescriptionMay 20 Paffresponsepdf
Content-Type applicationpdf
Content-Encoding base64
OPRA Request
1 of 1 622011 815 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 53 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 54 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 55 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 56 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 57 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 58 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 59 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 60 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 61 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 62 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 63 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 64 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 65 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 66 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 67 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 68 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 69 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 70 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 71 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 72 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 73 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 74 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 75 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 76 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 77 of 77
- Civil Complaint
- Exhibits
-
on top Another tax increase for the people God I hate what the democrat machinehave done to this once great state352011 111649 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser ImageSnoopysam wrotesickofpolsnj you must be on ot those employees that Brazelton held accountable forHER actions You are right there is so much more to this story and when the real truthscome out there will be some emplopyeesadministratorsboard members hanging theirheads in shame Talk about wasting taxpayer dollars take a look at some of the lazyincompetent employees that Brazelton had to deal withand their HUGE mistakes thathad to be corrected which cost the taxpayers thousands upon thousands of dollars352011 94250 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagesickofpolsnj wroteYou are exactly correct A teacher would never get a sweatheart deal like this I wonderwhich Board Member it was that was mentioned in that letter Did you read the blog thatthis all came out on it has way more details than this articlehttpdansviewrunnemedewordpresscom352011 92934 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagesickofpolsnj wroteOnly thing is Runnemede never had these issues Somerdale had the same EXACT issueswith Brazelton Administrators arent allowed to comment however talk to the teachersand employees off record they will tell you all about Kelly352011 92726 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagesickofpolsnj wroteThere is so much more to this story I hope the CP will run a follow up 1 Look into therealtionship and hiring surrounding Doug the maintenance supervisor 2 Check intoBrazeltons past employment Somerdale Schools 3 Brazelton is rumored to be hired atthe completion of the settlement in Deptford 4 Look into unethical practices between aBoard Member and Brazelton 5 And what about the other Board member that wasrecently charged with a serious crime352011 92315 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imageicallbullschit wroteOnce again the government tries to pin their mistakes on an individual when they screwup royally What the paper fails to report is the other side Maybe years and years ofmismanagement and patronage were uncovered and it became a hostile environmentwhen people got called on their actions and the same old routine was stopped Maybethe school board realized it would be cheaper to pay one than to pay many for theirmistakes Maybe the school board was willing to pay in order to keep their dirty littlesecrets covered up Maybe the resident should look deeper into the actions of the schoolboard and the rest of the administration Maybe I am wrong but it seems that the board
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 32 of 77
got called on some issues and now they are attacking one individual to cover theirtracks They seem to be acting like the GREAT WIZARD OF OZ Pay no attention to theidiots behind the curtain we are the all powerful and all knowing school board Pull backthe curtain people because there are people behind there that are faking their waythrough and going to wind up costing the district millions Just saying352011 85642 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagecookmom wroteSchool board President Colleen Kurth said it was much easier to go with a separationagreement than pay more legal fees She compared paying Brazelton to paying ateacher out sick while a substitute fills in The job just has to go on Kurth said I amconfused A teacher out SICK is NOT the same as a HOSTILE work enviorment How cana medical condition be compared to a person being accused of a hostile workenviorment A teacher would be REQUIRED to use their sick days~ since this is beingcompared to an illness ~was Brazelton REQUIRED to give up her sickvacation pay orwas that part of the dealWas she also paid for those days Wouldnt we all love to becollecting a salary from two towns As now she is being paid by Runnemde AND acurrent SCHOOL district where she is currently employed THIS is the waste in ourSchool districts352011 83552 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imageneocon wroteShe is part of the Protected Classes All you need to know is that she is better thanyou so just keep moveing along Nothing to see here352011 81912 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report Abuse
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 33 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 34 of 77
New Jersey Libertarian PartyOpen Government Advocacy Project
John Paff Chairman
PO Box 5424
Somerset NJ 08875-5424
Phone 732-873-1251 - Fax 908-325-0129
Email lpsmcpoboxcom
May 7 2011
Hon Colleen Kurth President and members of the
Runnemede Board of Education
505 W Third Ave
Runnemede NJ 08078 (via e-mail to vcarmodyrunnemedeschoolsorg )
Dear President Kurth and Board members
I write both individually and on behalf the New Jersey Libertarian Partys Open
Government Advocacy Project to comment on 1) the manner in which the Board of Education
goes into nonpublic (ie executive or closed) session and 2) the level of detail contained within
the Boardrsquos executive session minutes
Issue 1 Executive Session resolutions
As you are aware the Senator Byron M Baer Open Public Meetings Act requires public
bodies such as the Runnemede Board of Education to publicly pass a resolution before
excluding the public from a meeting The statute that requires the resolution states
NJSA 104-13mdashClosed meetings resolution to conduct
No public body shall exclude the public from any meeting to discuss any
matter described in subsection 7 b (104-12) until the public body shall
first adopt a resolution at a meeting to which the public shall be admitted
a Stating the general nature of the subject to be discussed and
b Stating as precisely as possible the time when and the circumstances
under which the discussion conducted in closed session of the public body
can be disclosed to the public
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 35 of 77
2
By way of a recent records request I received resolutions which purport to authorize
executive sessions intended to be held by the Board of Education on July 28 2010 (2 sessions)
August 20 2010 February 2 1011 February 23 2011 (2 sessions) and March 2 2011 Those
resolutions which are virtually identical to each other state
Executive Session to discuss student matters personnel contractual and
legal matters [time and a statement as to whether action will be
taken]
[identity of maker of motion etc]
Resolved that pursuant to Section 8 of the Public Meetings Act the public
shall be excluded from that portion of the meeting involving the discussion
of personnel legal and contractual matters Further resolved that
discussion of such subject matters discussed in Executive Session can be
disclosed to public upon official action if any at the conclusion of the
executive session or at a public session at some later date
I dont think that this form of resolution satisfies NJSA 104-13 because it gives the
public no real sense of what is being privately discussed1 To paraphrase the highest court of of
another state a body which only announces ldquolegal mattersrdquo or ldquopersonnel negotiationsrdquo for
going into executive session has said nothing It might has well have stated to the audience
ldquoLadies and gentlemen we are going into executive sessionrdquo and stopped there Hinds County
Board of Supervisors v Common Cause of Mississippi 551 So2d 107 114 (MS 1989)
Of course there can be no dispute that the Board of Education often has legitimate
reasons to meet in nonpublic session Among these reasons is the need to prevent the adverse
parties in litigation or contract negotiations from gaining an unfair advantage and to allow
members of the governing body to debate and deliberate personnel matters without public
scrutiny or participation But the need to discuss matters privately should not prevent the
public from being informed as precisely as possible of the topics that are being privately
discussed
For example suppose that Runnemede Board is being sued by a Mr Jones who was
injured after he slipped and fell on what he claims to be negligently maintained school
property Since the lawsuit is already a public record there is no public purpose served by
vaguely describing a private discussion of it as ldquostudent matters personnel contractual and
legal mattersrdquo Rather the resolution should at the very least describe the private discussion as
1 In January 2007 when I most recently litigated this issue Middlesex County Superior Court Judge Alexander P
Waugh issued a written decision in which he agreed with other court decisions that closed session resolutions
should contain as much information as is consistent with full public knowledge without doing any harm to the
public interest Judge Waughs decision and other case documents are on the Web at
httpogtfarchiveorgOGTFMonroeBOEWebreadypdf
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 36 of 77
3
ldquoDiscussion of slip and fall negligence suit Jones v Runnemede Board Docket No CAM-L-
012345-11rdquo This way the public has a very good sense of what the Boardrsquos private discussion is
about while the ability of the Board to develop its lawsuit strategy is not undermined
Using the same example suppose that Jonesrsquo attorney sent the Boardrsquos attorney an offer
to fully settle the lawsuit upon the Boardrsquos payment of $20000 While the Board would
obviously need to discuss how to respond to the offer in private lest Jones or his attorney
would be in the audience witnessing the discussion there is no reason why the public cannot be
informed in the NJSA 104-13 resolution that the Board will meet in private to discuss ldquoa
settlement offer received from the Plaintiff in the slip and fall negligence suit known as Jones v
Runnemede Board Docket No CAM-L-012345-11 in which the Plaintiff offers to settle the suit
in exchange for the Board paying him $20000rdquo While it may initially seem that this would
provide ldquotoo muchrdquo information to the public this concern disappears once it is realized that
the sole purpose of the exception2 that allows litigation matters to be discussed in private is to
keep the adverse party to the litigation in the dark regarding the Boardrsquos position3 Since in this
example the adverse party (ie Jones) already knows that he offered to settle the lawsuit for
$20000 there is no legitimate reason why the public should not also know of the tendered
settlement offer
As another example suppose that a personnel matter such as whether or not a Mrs
Smith a public works employee should be disciplined because of repeatedly arriving late to
work is to be discussed in closed session In such a case the amount of detail set forth in the
NJSA 104-13 resolution should correspond to the amount of detail that the Board and its
attorney predict will be publicly disclosed in the closed meetingrsquos minutes when those minutes
are made public
The standard that the Board is to use when determining how much information about a
personnel matter is to be disclosed in the closed sessionrsquos minutes is set forth in South Jersey
Publishing Company Inc v New Jersey Expressway Authority 124 NJ 478 (1991) That
standard is that a) the public needs information if it is properly fulfill its role of evaluating the
wisdom of governmental action or a decision not to act b) that New Jerseys strong public
policy requires that a public bodyrsquos actions and decisions to not act be disclosed in the bodys
closed meeting minutes along with sufficient facts and information to permit the public to
understand and appraise the reasonableness of the bodys determination and c) to the extent a
cognizable privacy interest may be compromised by the required disclosure the extent of
disclosure may be modified through redactions of the minutes provided the public interest in
disclosure is not subverted
2 NJSA104-12(b)(7) is to prevent adverse parties to litigation and contracts from learning the details of the
public bodyrsquos negotiation tactics and litigation strategy3 See the discussion in Paff v Washington Township Docket No MER-L-2205-07 and Nevin v Asbury Park City
Board 2005 WL 2847974 (App Div November 1 2005) which are on-line at
httpogtfarchiveorgOGTFWashingtonpdf (Nevin begins at page 44 of the PDF file at the link)
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 37 of 77
4
Thus regardless of whether the Board disciplines Ms Smith or chooses to not impose
discipline due to her lateness the outcome should be recorded in the closed meeting minutes
The question of whether that entry in the minutes should be redacted before the minutes are
made public requires a balancing of Ms Smithrsquos interest in keeping the disciplinary matter
private against the publicrsquos interest in effectively monitoring the Board If the Board with
counselrsquos advice determines after balancing these interests that the outcome will be published
unredacted in the closed sessionrsquos minutes (ie if the minutes will disclose to the public eg that
ldquoMs Smith was suspended for three days on account of her habitual latenessrdquo) then the exact
nature of the matter (ie that ldquothe Board will discuss disciplining Ms Smith for excessive
latenessrdquo) should be set forth in the closed meetingrsquos NJSA 104-13 resolution Inversely if the
Board determines that Ms Smithrsquos privacy interest exceeds the publicrsquos right to know then less
information (eg ldquothe Board will discuss disciplining an employee for excessive latenessrdquo)
should be set forth in the closed meetingrsquos NJSA 104-13 resolution
In other words if the officer or employee being discussed doesnt have a privacy interest
sufficient to withstand a citizens request for the executive session minutes why should not the
public know the topic of the executive session prior to it occurring
Irsquove attached as Exhibit pages 1 -3 is a model resolution that I would like the Board to
use in the future
Issue 2 Executive Session minutes
Attached as Exhibit Page 4 as an example are the Boardrsquos July 28 2010 executive session
minutes It is troubling that a meeting that lasted over an hour is being summed up in a single
sentence ldquoMr Phil Stern addressed the Board of Education about personnel issuesrdquo These
minutes are not ldquoreasonably comprehensiblerdquo as required by NJSA 104-14
The purpose of closed meeting minutes is not merely to inform the public of whatoccurred during the private session but also to create a record for the Board membersthemselves A Board member who is newly elected in 2012 should be able by referringsolely to the minutes to figure out what issues the Board addressed during any previouslyheld closed meeting This hypothetical Board member after reading the July 28 2010closed minutes could not possibly figure out which employees or officials Mr Stern wastalking about
Better practice would be to record closed minutes that are much morecomprehensive but to redact that material that must be shielded from public view Forexample the minutes could have said
Mr Stern addressed the Board of Education about the habitualtardiness of 2nd grade teacher Mary Doe and her propensity to eatlibrary paste and scream hysterically during fire drills Herecommended that she be sent for psychiatric evaluation
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 38 of 77
5
Of course if a member of the public requested these hypothetical minutes the Boardmay need to redact them in order to protect privacy interests The point however is thatregardless of whether unredacted closed meeting minutes are ever released to the publicthey should contain sufficient details so that the Board members themselves can monthsor years later know what was discussed
Attached as Exhibit pages 5 ndash 9 is an order recently entered in Schmidt et al v City of
Gloucester City et al Docket No CAM-L-1287-11 As you can see paraA(3) supports my position
that the Boardrsquos minutes are not ldquoreasonably comprehensiblerdquo as required by law
Conclusion
Since some public bodies do not take my requests for Meetings Act compliance seriously
I regret having to inform the Board that I will sue for declaratory and injunctive relief in
accordance with NJSA 104-16 unless I receive assurances from the Boardmdashwithin a few days
after its May 10 2011 meetingmdashthat it will work in good faith to improve the amount of
information in both its closed session resolutions and minutes If the Boardrsquos agenda is already
set for the May 10 2011 meeting please at least acknowledge this letter and let me know the
date of the meeting at which it will be considered
Thank you very much for your attention to this matter I look forward to hearing from
you
Sincerely
John Paff
cc Philip E Stern Esq w enc (via e-mail to psternasgllawcom )
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 39 of 77
RUNNEMEDE BOARD OF EDUCATIONRESOLUTION NO ___________
AUTHORIZING EXECUTIVE SESSION
WHEREAS while the Sen Byron M Baer Open Public Meetings Act (NJSA 104-6 et seq) requires allmeetings of the Runnemede Board of Education to be held in public NJSA 104-12(b) sets forth nine (9)types of matters that may lawfully be discussed in ldquoExecutive Sessionrdquo ie without the public beingpermitted to attend and
WHEREAS the Runnemede Board of Education has determined that _____ (insert number) issues arepermitted by NJSA 104-12(b) to be discussed without the public in attendance shall be discussed duringan Executive Session to be held on _________________________ 20____ at _______ PM and
WHEREAS the nine (9) exceptions to public meetings set forth in NJSA 104-12(b) are listed below andnext to each exception is a box within which the number of issues to be privately discussed that fall withinthat exception shall be written and after each exception is a space where additional information that willdisclose as much information about the discussion as possible without undermining the purpose of theexception shall be written
ldquo(1) Any matter which by express provision of Federal law State statute or rule of courtshall be rendered confidential or excluded from public discussionrdquo The legal citation to theprovision(s) at issue is__________________________ and the nature of the matter described asspecifically as possible without undermining the need for confidentiality is _______________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(2) Any matter in which the release of information would impair a right to receive fundsfrom the federal governmentrdquo The nature of the matter described as specifically as possiblewithout undermining the need for confidentiality is _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(3) Any material the disclosure of which constitutes an unwarranted invasion of individualprivacy such as any records data reports recommendations or other personal material ofany educational training social service medical health custodial child protectionrehabilitation legal defense welfare housing relocation insurance and similar program orinstitution operated by a public body pertaining to any specific individual admitted to orserved by such institution or program including but not limited to information relative tothe individuals personal and family circumstances and any material pertaining toadmission discharge treatment progress or condition of any individual unless theindividual concerned (or in the case of a minor or incompetent his guardian) shall requestin writing that the same be disclosed publiclyrdquo The nature of the matter described asspecifically as possible without undermining the need for confidentiality is______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(4) Any collective bargaining agreement or the terms and conditions of which are proposedfor inclusion in any collective bargaining agreement including the negotiation of terms andconditions with employees or representatives of employees of the public bodyrdquo The collectivebargaining contract(s) discussed are between the Board and ____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Exhibit Page 1Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 40 of 77
ldquo(5) Any matter involving the purchase lease or acquisition of real property with publicfunds the setting of bank rates or investment of public funds where it could adversely affectthe public interest if discussion of such matters were disclosedrdquo The nature of the matterdescribed as specifically as possible without undermining the need for confidentiality is____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(6) Any tactics and techniques utilized in protecting the safety and property of the publicprovided that their disclosure could impair such protection Any investigations of violationsor possible violations of the lawrdquo The nature of the matter described as specifically as possiblewithout undermining the need for confidentiality is ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(7) Any pending or anticipated litigation or contract negotiation in which the public body isor may become a party Any matters falling within the attorney-client privilege to the extentthat confidentiality is required in order for the attorney to exercise his ethicalduties as a lawyerrdquo The parties to and docket numbers of each item of litigation andor theparties to each contract discussed are __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ andnature of the discussion described as specifically as possible without undermining the need forconfidentiality is ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(8) Any matter involving the employment appointment termination of employment termsand conditions of employment evaluation of the performance promotion or disciplining ofany specific prospective public officer or employee or current public officer or employeeemployed or appointed by the public body unless all individual employees or appointees whoserights could be adversely affected request in writing that such matter or matters be discussed ata public meetingrdquo Subject to the balancing of the publicrsquos interest and the employeersquos privacyrights under South Jersey Publishing Co v New Jersey Expressway Authority 124 NJ 478 theemployee(s) and nature of the discussion described as specifically as possible withoutundermining the need for confidentiality are _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(9) Any deliberation of a public body occurring after a public hearing that may result in theimposition of a specific civil penalty upon the responding party or the suspension or loss of alicense or permit belonging to the responding party as a result of an act of omission forwhich the responding party bears responsibilityrdquo The nature of the matter described asspecifically as possible without undermining the need for confidentiality is______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
WHEREAS the length of the Executive Session is estimated to be ________ minutes after which the publicmeeting of the Board shall (circle one) reconvene and immediately adjourn or reconvene and proceed withbusiness
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Runnemede Board of Education will go into ExecutiveSession for only the above stated reasons
Exhibit Page 2Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 41 of 77
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board hereby declares that its discussion of the aforementionedsubject(s) will be made public at a time when the publicrsquos interest in disclosure is greater than any privacy orgovernmental interest being protected from disclosure For each of the above items the estimated date bywhich such disclosure can be made andor the occurrence that needs to take place before disclosure can bemade are listed below (attach separate sheet if necessary)
Subject of Discussion Estimated Date Necessary Occurrence
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Clerk at the present public meeting shall read aloud enough ofthis resolution so that members of the public in attendance can understand as precisely as possible thenature of the matters that will privately discussed
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Clerk on the next business day following this meeting shallfurnish a copy of this resolution to any member of the public who requests one at the fees allowed byNJSA 471A-1 et seq
_________________________________Board President
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS ATRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTIONAPPROVED BY THE RUNNEMEDE BOARD OF EDUCATION AT ITSPUBLIC MEETING HELD ON ______________________20___
_______________________________________Board Secretary
Exhibit Page 3Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 42 of 77
Exhibit Page 4Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 43 of 77
Exhibit Page 5Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 44 of 77
Exhibit Page 6Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 45 of 77
Exhibit Page 7Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 46 of 77
Exhibit Page 8Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 47 of 77
Exhibit Page 9Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 48 of 77
Subject Records RequestFrom John Paff ltpaffpoboxcomgtDate Sat 07 May 2011 161444 -0400To vcarmodyrunnemedeschoolsorgCC psternasgllawcom
Ms Carmody
Please accept this e-mail as my request for government records inaccordance with the Open Public Records Act (OPRA) and the commonlaw right of access Please respond and send all responsivedocuments to me via e-mail at paffpoboxcom If e-mail is notpossible please fax responses and responsive records to me at908-325-0129 Also I would appreciate it if you wouldacknowledge your receipt of this e-mail
Background
In response to a records request I recently received redactedexecutive session minutes for the following dates July 28 2010(first session) August 26 2010 February 2 2011 February 232011 (two sessions) and March 2 2011 Although Mr Stern providedme with a sheet entitled Documents Exempt From OPRA request thatpurports to explain these redactions I am still unclear as to whythe matter was redacted and whether it was lawfully redacted
First I dont understand references such as NJSA 471A-11(12)(c) The version of OPRA that I have (plus every other oneIve seen) does not have internal numbers within NJSA471A-11 Am I correct that NJSA 471A-11(12)(c) isintended to refer to the exemption for records in connection withcollective negotiations including documents and statements ofstrategy or negotiating position and that NJSA 471A-11(7)is intended to refer to any record within the attorney-clientprivilege This paragraph shall not be construed as exempting fromaccess attorney or consultant bills or invoices except that suchbills or invoices may be redacted to remove any informationprotected by the attorney-client privilege Please advise
Second even if I correctly corresponded the claimed exemptions tothe OPRA statute I have no way of knowing whether the mattersredacted are actually exempt from access When a custodiansuppresses any portion of any requested record NJSA471A-5(g) requires him or her to state the ldquospecific basisrdquo foreach suppressed element Beyond stating the ldquospecific basisrdquo foreach suppressed element he or she is required to ldquoproduce
Records Request
1 of 2 622011 810 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 49 of 77
specific reliable evidence sufficient to meet a statutorilyrecognized basis for confidentialityrdquo Courier News v HunterdonCounty Prosecutorrsquos Office 358 NJ Super 373 382-83 (App Div2003) Further he or she must explain each suppression in amanner that ldquowill enable other parties to assess the applicabilityof the privilege or protectionrdquo Paff v New Jersey Department ofLabor Board of Review 379 NJ Super 346 354-55 (2005)(quoting R 410-2(e))
Records requested
Runnemede Board of Education minutes for the following dates July28 2010 (728 pm session only) August 26 2010 February 22011 February 23 2011 (both sessions) and March 2 2011 Iwould like these minutes redacted as narrowly as possible if atall For each redaction I request a written explanation thatmeets the requirements of the case law cited above
cc Phil Stern
Records Request
2 of 2 622011 810 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 50 of 77
Subject Re Fwd Runnemede Board of Education Open PublicMeetings ActFrom John Paff ltpaffpoboxcomgtDate Mon 09 May 2011 134726 -0400To Nancy Ward ltnwardrunnemedeschoolsorggt
Thank you
On 592011 116 PM Nancy Ward wrote
Mr Paff
The Board has named me Custodian of Records Please direct allfuturecommunication to me The May 10 2011 meeting is theRe-organization ofthe Runnemede Board of Education The agenda is set and is verycomprehensive I intend to defer the letter and any discussionregardingits content to the next regular meeting the date of which willbe setat the re-organization tomorrow night In keeping with thedistrictsmeeting pattern that will be May 25 2011
Nancy BWard EdD
Superintendent of Schools
-----Original Message-----From John PaffSent 572011 42300 PMTo nwardrunnemedeschoolsorgCc vcarmodyrunnemedeschoolsorg psternasgllawcomSubject Fwd Runnemede Board of Education Open Public MeetingsAct
Here is another e-mail in case my original one should have beendirected to Ms Ward and not Ms Carmody
JP
-------- Original Message --------Subject Runnemede Board of Education Open Public Meetings ActDate Sat 07 May 2011 152319 -0400From John Paff
Re Fwd Runnemede Board of Education Open Public Meetings Act
1 of 2 622011 811 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 51 of 77
Reply-To paffpoboxcomTo vcarmodyrunnemedeschoolsorg psternasgllawcom
Ms Carmody and Mr Stern
Attached is a letter that I would like the Board to consider atits May10 2011 meeting Would you please a) acknowledge receipt of theletterand b) distribute it to all the Board members
Note that the last paragraph of the letter indicates that I willfilesuit against the Board if the issues in the letter arentaddressedSo if the Boards agenda for the May 10th meeting is so tightthat myletter cannot be accommodated please advise me of such andprovide ameeting date where my letter will be addressed so that I knowthat I amnot being ignored
Thank you
John Paff ChairmanNew Jersey Libertarian PartysOpen Government Advocacy Project
Re Fwd Runnemede Board of Education Open Public Meetings Act
2 of 2 622011 811 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 52 of 77
Subject OPRA RequestFrom Philip Stern ltpsternasgllawcomgtDate Fri 20 May 2011 161015 -0500To paffpoboxcom ltpaffpoboxcomgtCC Nancy Ward ltnwardrunnemedeschoolsorggt
Mr Paff please find attached to this email a response to your request forbusiness records Please note that in providing you with the attachedrecords the Runnemede Borough Board of Education waives no rightsregarding the attorney-client privilege Do not hesitate to call me if youhave any questions Phil Stern
Philip E SternAdams Stern Gutierrez amp Lattiboudere LLCThe Legal Center1037 Raymond Blvd Suite 710Newark New Jersey 07102(973) 735-2742 (office telephone)(201) 914-2415 (cellular telephone)(973) 735-2743 (office telefax)
May 20 Paff responsepdf
Content-DescriptionMay 20 Paffresponsepdf
Content-Type applicationpdf
Content-Encoding base64
OPRA Request
1 of 1 622011 815 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 53 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 54 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 55 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 56 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 57 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 58 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 59 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 60 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 61 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 62 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 63 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 64 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 65 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 66 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 67 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 68 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 69 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 70 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 71 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 72 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 73 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 74 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 75 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 76 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 77 of 77
- Civil Complaint
- Exhibits
-
got called on some issues and now they are attacking one individual to cover theirtracks They seem to be acting like the GREAT WIZARD OF OZ Pay no attention to theidiots behind the curtain we are the all powerful and all knowing school board Pull backthe curtain people because there are people behind there that are faking their waythrough and going to wind up costing the district millions Just saying352011 85642 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imagecookmom wroteSchool board President Colleen Kurth said it was much easier to go with a separationagreement than pay more legal fees She compared paying Brazelton to paying ateacher out sick while a substitute fills in The job just has to go on Kurth said I amconfused A teacher out SICK is NOT the same as a HOSTILE work enviorment How cana medical condition be compared to a person being accused of a hostile workenviorment A teacher would be REQUIRED to use their sick days~ since this is beingcompared to an illness ~was Brazelton REQUIRED to give up her sickvacation pay orwas that part of the dealWas she also paid for those days Wouldnt we all love to becollecting a salary from two towns As now she is being paid by Runnemde AND acurrent SCHOOL district where she is currently employed THIS is the waste in ourSchool districts352011 83552 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report AbuseUser Imageneocon wroteShe is part of the Protected Classes All you need to know is that she is better thanyou so just keep moveing along Nothing to see here352011 81912 AMRecommend New Post Reply to this Post Report Abuse
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 33 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 34 of 77
New Jersey Libertarian PartyOpen Government Advocacy Project
John Paff Chairman
PO Box 5424
Somerset NJ 08875-5424
Phone 732-873-1251 - Fax 908-325-0129
Email lpsmcpoboxcom
May 7 2011
Hon Colleen Kurth President and members of the
Runnemede Board of Education
505 W Third Ave
Runnemede NJ 08078 (via e-mail to vcarmodyrunnemedeschoolsorg )
Dear President Kurth and Board members
I write both individually and on behalf the New Jersey Libertarian Partys Open
Government Advocacy Project to comment on 1) the manner in which the Board of Education
goes into nonpublic (ie executive or closed) session and 2) the level of detail contained within
the Boardrsquos executive session minutes
Issue 1 Executive Session resolutions
As you are aware the Senator Byron M Baer Open Public Meetings Act requires public
bodies such as the Runnemede Board of Education to publicly pass a resolution before
excluding the public from a meeting The statute that requires the resolution states
NJSA 104-13mdashClosed meetings resolution to conduct
No public body shall exclude the public from any meeting to discuss any
matter described in subsection 7 b (104-12) until the public body shall
first adopt a resolution at a meeting to which the public shall be admitted
a Stating the general nature of the subject to be discussed and
b Stating as precisely as possible the time when and the circumstances
under which the discussion conducted in closed session of the public body
can be disclosed to the public
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 35 of 77
2
By way of a recent records request I received resolutions which purport to authorize
executive sessions intended to be held by the Board of Education on July 28 2010 (2 sessions)
August 20 2010 February 2 1011 February 23 2011 (2 sessions) and March 2 2011 Those
resolutions which are virtually identical to each other state
Executive Session to discuss student matters personnel contractual and
legal matters [time and a statement as to whether action will be
taken]
[identity of maker of motion etc]
Resolved that pursuant to Section 8 of the Public Meetings Act the public
shall be excluded from that portion of the meeting involving the discussion
of personnel legal and contractual matters Further resolved that
discussion of such subject matters discussed in Executive Session can be
disclosed to public upon official action if any at the conclusion of the
executive session or at a public session at some later date
I dont think that this form of resolution satisfies NJSA 104-13 because it gives the
public no real sense of what is being privately discussed1 To paraphrase the highest court of of
another state a body which only announces ldquolegal mattersrdquo or ldquopersonnel negotiationsrdquo for
going into executive session has said nothing It might has well have stated to the audience
ldquoLadies and gentlemen we are going into executive sessionrdquo and stopped there Hinds County
Board of Supervisors v Common Cause of Mississippi 551 So2d 107 114 (MS 1989)
Of course there can be no dispute that the Board of Education often has legitimate
reasons to meet in nonpublic session Among these reasons is the need to prevent the adverse
parties in litigation or contract negotiations from gaining an unfair advantage and to allow
members of the governing body to debate and deliberate personnel matters without public
scrutiny or participation But the need to discuss matters privately should not prevent the
public from being informed as precisely as possible of the topics that are being privately
discussed
For example suppose that Runnemede Board is being sued by a Mr Jones who was
injured after he slipped and fell on what he claims to be negligently maintained school
property Since the lawsuit is already a public record there is no public purpose served by
vaguely describing a private discussion of it as ldquostudent matters personnel contractual and
legal mattersrdquo Rather the resolution should at the very least describe the private discussion as
1 In January 2007 when I most recently litigated this issue Middlesex County Superior Court Judge Alexander P
Waugh issued a written decision in which he agreed with other court decisions that closed session resolutions
should contain as much information as is consistent with full public knowledge without doing any harm to the
public interest Judge Waughs decision and other case documents are on the Web at
httpogtfarchiveorgOGTFMonroeBOEWebreadypdf
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 36 of 77
3
ldquoDiscussion of slip and fall negligence suit Jones v Runnemede Board Docket No CAM-L-
012345-11rdquo This way the public has a very good sense of what the Boardrsquos private discussion is
about while the ability of the Board to develop its lawsuit strategy is not undermined
Using the same example suppose that Jonesrsquo attorney sent the Boardrsquos attorney an offer
to fully settle the lawsuit upon the Boardrsquos payment of $20000 While the Board would
obviously need to discuss how to respond to the offer in private lest Jones or his attorney
would be in the audience witnessing the discussion there is no reason why the public cannot be
informed in the NJSA 104-13 resolution that the Board will meet in private to discuss ldquoa
settlement offer received from the Plaintiff in the slip and fall negligence suit known as Jones v
Runnemede Board Docket No CAM-L-012345-11 in which the Plaintiff offers to settle the suit
in exchange for the Board paying him $20000rdquo While it may initially seem that this would
provide ldquotoo muchrdquo information to the public this concern disappears once it is realized that
the sole purpose of the exception2 that allows litigation matters to be discussed in private is to
keep the adverse party to the litigation in the dark regarding the Boardrsquos position3 Since in this
example the adverse party (ie Jones) already knows that he offered to settle the lawsuit for
$20000 there is no legitimate reason why the public should not also know of the tendered
settlement offer
As another example suppose that a personnel matter such as whether or not a Mrs
Smith a public works employee should be disciplined because of repeatedly arriving late to
work is to be discussed in closed session In such a case the amount of detail set forth in the
NJSA 104-13 resolution should correspond to the amount of detail that the Board and its
attorney predict will be publicly disclosed in the closed meetingrsquos minutes when those minutes
are made public
The standard that the Board is to use when determining how much information about a
personnel matter is to be disclosed in the closed sessionrsquos minutes is set forth in South Jersey
Publishing Company Inc v New Jersey Expressway Authority 124 NJ 478 (1991) That
standard is that a) the public needs information if it is properly fulfill its role of evaluating the
wisdom of governmental action or a decision not to act b) that New Jerseys strong public
policy requires that a public bodyrsquos actions and decisions to not act be disclosed in the bodys
closed meeting minutes along with sufficient facts and information to permit the public to
understand and appraise the reasonableness of the bodys determination and c) to the extent a
cognizable privacy interest may be compromised by the required disclosure the extent of
disclosure may be modified through redactions of the minutes provided the public interest in
disclosure is not subverted
2 NJSA104-12(b)(7) is to prevent adverse parties to litigation and contracts from learning the details of the
public bodyrsquos negotiation tactics and litigation strategy3 See the discussion in Paff v Washington Township Docket No MER-L-2205-07 and Nevin v Asbury Park City
Board 2005 WL 2847974 (App Div November 1 2005) which are on-line at
httpogtfarchiveorgOGTFWashingtonpdf (Nevin begins at page 44 of the PDF file at the link)
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 37 of 77
4
Thus regardless of whether the Board disciplines Ms Smith or chooses to not impose
discipline due to her lateness the outcome should be recorded in the closed meeting minutes
The question of whether that entry in the minutes should be redacted before the minutes are
made public requires a balancing of Ms Smithrsquos interest in keeping the disciplinary matter
private against the publicrsquos interest in effectively monitoring the Board If the Board with
counselrsquos advice determines after balancing these interests that the outcome will be published
unredacted in the closed sessionrsquos minutes (ie if the minutes will disclose to the public eg that
ldquoMs Smith was suspended for three days on account of her habitual latenessrdquo) then the exact
nature of the matter (ie that ldquothe Board will discuss disciplining Ms Smith for excessive
latenessrdquo) should be set forth in the closed meetingrsquos NJSA 104-13 resolution Inversely if the
Board determines that Ms Smithrsquos privacy interest exceeds the publicrsquos right to know then less
information (eg ldquothe Board will discuss disciplining an employee for excessive latenessrdquo)
should be set forth in the closed meetingrsquos NJSA 104-13 resolution
In other words if the officer or employee being discussed doesnt have a privacy interest
sufficient to withstand a citizens request for the executive session minutes why should not the
public know the topic of the executive session prior to it occurring
Irsquove attached as Exhibit pages 1 -3 is a model resolution that I would like the Board to
use in the future
Issue 2 Executive Session minutes
Attached as Exhibit Page 4 as an example are the Boardrsquos July 28 2010 executive session
minutes It is troubling that a meeting that lasted over an hour is being summed up in a single
sentence ldquoMr Phil Stern addressed the Board of Education about personnel issuesrdquo These
minutes are not ldquoreasonably comprehensiblerdquo as required by NJSA 104-14
The purpose of closed meeting minutes is not merely to inform the public of whatoccurred during the private session but also to create a record for the Board membersthemselves A Board member who is newly elected in 2012 should be able by referringsolely to the minutes to figure out what issues the Board addressed during any previouslyheld closed meeting This hypothetical Board member after reading the July 28 2010closed minutes could not possibly figure out which employees or officials Mr Stern wastalking about
Better practice would be to record closed minutes that are much morecomprehensive but to redact that material that must be shielded from public view Forexample the minutes could have said
Mr Stern addressed the Board of Education about the habitualtardiness of 2nd grade teacher Mary Doe and her propensity to eatlibrary paste and scream hysterically during fire drills Herecommended that she be sent for psychiatric evaluation
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 38 of 77
5
Of course if a member of the public requested these hypothetical minutes the Boardmay need to redact them in order to protect privacy interests The point however is thatregardless of whether unredacted closed meeting minutes are ever released to the publicthey should contain sufficient details so that the Board members themselves can monthsor years later know what was discussed
Attached as Exhibit pages 5 ndash 9 is an order recently entered in Schmidt et al v City of
Gloucester City et al Docket No CAM-L-1287-11 As you can see paraA(3) supports my position
that the Boardrsquos minutes are not ldquoreasonably comprehensiblerdquo as required by law
Conclusion
Since some public bodies do not take my requests for Meetings Act compliance seriously
I regret having to inform the Board that I will sue for declaratory and injunctive relief in
accordance with NJSA 104-16 unless I receive assurances from the Boardmdashwithin a few days
after its May 10 2011 meetingmdashthat it will work in good faith to improve the amount of
information in both its closed session resolutions and minutes If the Boardrsquos agenda is already
set for the May 10 2011 meeting please at least acknowledge this letter and let me know the
date of the meeting at which it will be considered
Thank you very much for your attention to this matter I look forward to hearing from
you
Sincerely
John Paff
cc Philip E Stern Esq w enc (via e-mail to psternasgllawcom )
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 39 of 77
RUNNEMEDE BOARD OF EDUCATIONRESOLUTION NO ___________
AUTHORIZING EXECUTIVE SESSION
WHEREAS while the Sen Byron M Baer Open Public Meetings Act (NJSA 104-6 et seq) requires allmeetings of the Runnemede Board of Education to be held in public NJSA 104-12(b) sets forth nine (9)types of matters that may lawfully be discussed in ldquoExecutive Sessionrdquo ie without the public beingpermitted to attend and
WHEREAS the Runnemede Board of Education has determined that _____ (insert number) issues arepermitted by NJSA 104-12(b) to be discussed without the public in attendance shall be discussed duringan Executive Session to be held on _________________________ 20____ at _______ PM and
WHEREAS the nine (9) exceptions to public meetings set forth in NJSA 104-12(b) are listed below andnext to each exception is a box within which the number of issues to be privately discussed that fall withinthat exception shall be written and after each exception is a space where additional information that willdisclose as much information about the discussion as possible without undermining the purpose of theexception shall be written
ldquo(1) Any matter which by express provision of Federal law State statute or rule of courtshall be rendered confidential or excluded from public discussionrdquo The legal citation to theprovision(s) at issue is__________________________ and the nature of the matter described asspecifically as possible without undermining the need for confidentiality is _______________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(2) Any matter in which the release of information would impair a right to receive fundsfrom the federal governmentrdquo The nature of the matter described as specifically as possiblewithout undermining the need for confidentiality is _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(3) Any material the disclosure of which constitutes an unwarranted invasion of individualprivacy such as any records data reports recommendations or other personal material ofany educational training social service medical health custodial child protectionrehabilitation legal defense welfare housing relocation insurance and similar program orinstitution operated by a public body pertaining to any specific individual admitted to orserved by such institution or program including but not limited to information relative tothe individuals personal and family circumstances and any material pertaining toadmission discharge treatment progress or condition of any individual unless theindividual concerned (or in the case of a minor or incompetent his guardian) shall requestin writing that the same be disclosed publiclyrdquo The nature of the matter described asspecifically as possible without undermining the need for confidentiality is______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(4) Any collective bargaining agreement or the terms and conditions of which are proposedfor inclusion in any collective bargaining agreement including the negotiation of terms andconditions with employees or representatives of employees of the public bodyrdquo The collectivebargaining contract(s) discussed are between the Board and ____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Exhibit Page 1Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 40 of 77
ldquo(5) Any matter involving the purchase lease or acquisition of real property with publicfunds the setting of bank rates or investment of public funds where it could adversely affectthe public interest if discussion of such matters were disclosedrdquo The nature of the matterdescribed as specifically as possible without undermining the need for confidentiality is____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(6) Any tactics and techniques utilized in protecting the safety and property of the publicprovided that their disclosure could impair such protection Any investigations of violationsor possible violations of the lawrdquo The nature of the matter described as specifically as possiblewithout undermining the need for confidentiality is ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(7) Any pending or anticipated litigation or contract negotiation in which the public body isor may become a party Any matters falling within the attorney-client privilege to the extentthat confidentiality is required in order for the attorney to exercise his ethicalduties as a lawyerrdquo The parties to and docket numbers of each item of litigation andor theparties to each contract discussed are __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ andnature of the discussion described as specifically as possible without undermining the need forconfidentiality is ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(8) Any matter involving the employment appointment termination of employment termsand conditions of employment evaluation of the performance promotion or disciplining ofany specific prospective public officer or employee or current public officer or employeeemployed or appointed by the public body unless all individual employees or appointees whoserights could be adversely affected request in writing that such matter or matters be discussed ata public meetingrdquo Subject to the balancing of the publicrsquos interest and the employeersquos privacyrights under South Jersey Publishing Co v New Jersey Expressway Authority 124 NJ 478 theemployee(s) and nature of the discussion described as specifically as possible withoutundermining the need for confidentiality are _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(9) Any deliberation of a public body occurring after a public hearing that may result in theimposition of a specific civil penalty upon the responding party or the suspension or loss of alicense or permit belonging to the responding party as a result of an act of omission forwhich the responding party bears responsibilityrdquo The nature of the matter described asspecifically as possible without undermining the need for confidentiality is______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
WHEREAS the length of the Executive Session is estimated to be ________ minutes after which the publicmeeting of the Board shall (circle one) reconvene and immediately adjourn or reconvene and proceed withbusiness
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Runnemede Board of Education will go into ExecutiveSession for only the above stated reasons
Exhibit Page 2Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 41 of 77
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board hereby declares that its discussion of the aforementionedsubject(s) will be made public at a time when the publicrsquos interest in disclosure is greater than any privacy orgovernmental interest being protected from disclosure For each of the above items the estimated date bywhich such disclosure can be made andor the occurrence that needs to take place before disclosure can bemade are listed below (attach separate sheet if necessary)
Subject of Discussion Estimated Date Necessary Occurrence
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Clerk at the present public meeting shall read aloud enough ofthis resolution so that members of the public in attendance can understand as precisely as possible thenature of the matters that will privately discussed
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Clerk on the next business day following this meeting shallfurnish a copy of this resolution to any member of the public who requests one at the fees allowed byNJSA 471A-1 et seq
_________________________________Board President
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS ATRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTIONAPPROVED BY THE RUNNEMEDE BOARD OF EDUCATION AT ITSPUBLIC MEETING HELD ON ______________________20___
_______________________________________Board Secretary
Exhibit Page 3Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 42 of 77
Exhibit Page 4Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 43 of 77
Exhibit Page 5Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 44 of 77
Exhibit Page 6Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 45 of 77
Exhibit Page 7Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 46 of 77
Exhibit Page 8Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 47 of 77
Exhibit Page 9Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 48 of 77
Subject Records RequestFrom John Paff ltpaffpoboxcomgtDate Sat 07 May 2011 161444 -0400To vcarmodyrunnemedeschoolsorgCC psternasgllawcom
Ms Carmody
Please accept this e-mail as my request for government records inaccordance with the Open Public Records Act (OPRA) and the commonlaw right of access Please respond and send all responsivedocuments to me via e-mail at paffpoboxcom If e-mail is notpossible please fax responses and responsive records to me at908-325-0129 Also I would appreciate it if you wouldacknowledge your receipt of this e-mail
Background
In response to a records request I recently received redactedexecutive session minutes for the following dates July 28 2010(first session) August 26 2010 February 2 2011 February 232011 (two sessions) and March 2 2011 Although Mr Stern providedme with a sheet entitled Documents Exempt From OPRA request thatpurports to explain these redactions I am still unclear as to whythe matter was redacted and whether it was lawfully redacted
First I dont understand references such as NJSA 471A-11(12)(c) The version of OPRA that I have (plus every other oneIve seen) does not have internal numbers within NJSA471A-11 Am I correct that NJSA 471A-11(12)(c) isintended to refer to the exemption for records in connection withcollective negotiations including documents and statements ofstrategy or negotiating position and that NJSA 471A-11(7)is intended to refer to any record within the attorney-clientprivilege This paragraph shall not be construed as exempting fromaccess attorney or consultant bills or invoices except that suchbills or invoices may be redacted to remove any informationprotected by the attorney-client privilege Please advise
Second even if I correctly corresponded the claimed exemptions tothe OPRA statute I have no way of knowing whether the mattersredacted are actually exempt from access When a custodiansuppresses any portion of any requested record NJSA471A-5(g) requires him or her to state the ldquospecific basisrdquo foreach suppressed element Beyond stating the ldquospecific basisrdquo foreach suppressed element he or she is required to ldquoproduce
Records Request
1 of 2 622011 810 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 49 of 77
specific reliable evidence sufficient to meet a statutorilyrecognized basis for confidentialityrdquo Courier News v HunterdonCounty Prosecutorrsquos Office 358 NJ Super 373 382-83 (App Div2003) Further he or she must explain each suppression in amanner that ldquowill enable other parties to assess the applicabilityof the privilege or protectionrdquo Paff v New Jersey Department ofLabor Board of Review 379 NJ Super 346 354-55 (2005)(quoting R 410-2(e))
Records requested
Runnemede Board of Education minutes for the following dates July28 2010 (728 pm session only) August 26 2010 February 22011 February 23 2011 (both sessions) and March 2 2011 Iwould like these minutes redacted as narrowly as possible if atall For each redaction I request a written explanation thatmeets the requirements of the case law cited above
cc Phil Stern
Records Request
2 of 2 622011 810 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 50 of 77
Subject Re Fwd Runnemede Board of Education Open PublicMeetings ActFrom John Paff ltpaffpoboxcomgtDate Mon 09 May 2011 134726 -0400To Nancy Ward ltnwardrunnemedeschoolsorggt
Thank you
On 592011 116 PM Nancy Ward wrote
Mr Paff
The Board has named me Custodian of Records Please direct allfuturecommunication to me The May 10 2011 meeting is theRe-organization ofthe Runnemede Board of Education The agenda is set and is verycomprehensive I intend to defer the letter and any discussionregardingits content to the next regular meeting the date of which willbe setat the re-organization tomorrow night In keeping with thedistrictsmeeting pattern that will be May 25 2011
Nancy BWard EdD
Superintendent of Schools
-----Original Message-----From John PaffSent 572011 42300 PMTo nwardrunnemedeschoolsorgCc vcarmodyrunnemedeschoolsorg psternasgllawcomSubject Fwd Runnemede Board of Education Open Public MeetingsAct
Here is another e-mail in case my original one should have beendirected to Ms Ward and not Ms Carmody
JP
-------- Original Message --------Subject Runnemede Board of Education Open Public Meetings ActDate Sat 07 May 2011 152319 -0400From John Paff
Re Fwd Runnemede Board of Education Open Public Meetings Act
1 of 2 622011 811 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 51 of 77
Reply-To paffpoboxcomTo vcarmodyrunnemedeschoolsorg psternasgllawcom
Ms Carmody and Mr Stern
Attached is a letter that I would like the Board to consider atits May10 2011 meeting Would you please a) acknowledge receipt of theletterand b) distribute it to all the Board members
Note that the last paragraph of the letter indicates that I willfilesuit against the Board if the issues in the letter arentaddressedSo if the Boards agenda for the May 10th meeting is so tightthat myletter cannot be accommodated please advise me of such andprovide ameeting date where my letter will be addressed so that I knowthat I amnot being ignored
Thank you
John Paff ChairmanNew Jersey Libertarian PartysOpen Government Advocacy Project
Re Fwd Runnemede Board of Education Open Public Meetings Act
2 of 2 622011 811 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 52 of 77
Subject OPRA RequestFrom Philip Stern ltpsternasgllawcomgtDate Fri 20 May 2011 161015 -0500To paffpoboxcom ltpaffpoboxcomgtCC Nancy Ward ltnwardrunnemedeschoolsorggt
Mr Paff please find attached to this email a response to your request forbusiness records Please note that in providing you with the attachedrecords the Runnemede Borough Board of Education waives no rightsregarding the attorney-client privilege Do not hesitate to call me if youhave any questions Phil Stern
Philip E SternAdams Stern Gutierrez amp Lattiboudere LLCThe Legal Center1037 Raymond Blvd Suite 710Newark New Jersey 07102(973) 735-2742 (office telephone)(201) 914-2415 (cellular telephone)(973) 735-2743 (office telefax)
May 20 Paff responsepdf
Content-DescriptionMay 20 Paffresponsepdf
Content-Type applicationpdf
Content-Encoding base64
OPRA Request
1 of 1 622011 815 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 53 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 54 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 55 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 56 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 57 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 58 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 59 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 60 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 61 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 62 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 63 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 64 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 65 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 66 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 67 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 68 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 69 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 70 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 71 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 72 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 73 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 74 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 75 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 76 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 77 of 77
- Civil Complaint
- Exhibits
-
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 34 of 77
New Jersey Libertarian PartyOpen Government Advocacy Project
John Paff Chairman
PO Box 5424
Somerset NJ 08875-5424
Phone 732-873-1251 - Fax 908-325-0129
Email lpsmcpoboxcom
May 7 2011
Hon Colleen Kurth President and members of the
Runnemede Board of Education
505 W Third Ave
Runnemede NJ 08078 (via e-mail to vcarmodyrunnemedeschoolsorg )
Dear President Kurth and Board members
I write both individually and on behalf the New Jersey Libertarian Partys Open
Government Advocacy Project to comment on 1) the manner in which the Board of Education
goes into nonpublic (ie executive or closed) session and 2) the level of detail contained within
the Boardrsquos executive session minutes
Issue 1 Executive Session resolutions
As you are aware the Senator Byron M Baer Open Public Meetings Act requires public
bodies such as the Runnemede Board of Education to publicly pass a resolution before
excluding the public from a meeting The statute that requires the resolution states
NJSA 104-13mdashClosed meetings resolution to conduct
No public body shall exclude the public from any meeting to discuss any
matter described in subsection 7 b (104-12) until the public body shall
first adopt a resolution at a meeting to which the public shall be admitted
a Stating the general nature of the subject to be discussed and
b Stating as precisely as possible the time when and the circumstances
under which the discussion conducted in closed session of the public body
can be disclosed to the public
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 35 of 77
2
By way of a recent records request I received resolutions which purport to authorize
executive sessions intended to be held by the Board of Education on July 28 2010 (2 sessions)
August 20 2010 February 2 1011 February 23 2011 (2 sessions) and March 2 2011 Those
resolutions which are virtually identical to each other state
Executive Session to discuss student matters personnel contractual and
legal matters [time and a statement as to whether action will be
taken]
[identity of maker of motion etc]
Resolved that pursuant to Section 8 of the Public Meetings Act the public
shall be excluded from that portion of the meeting involving the discussion
of personnel legal and contractual matters Further resolved that
discussion of such subject matters discussed in Executive Session can be
disclosed to public upon official action if any at the conclusion of the
executive session or at a public session at some later date
I dont think that this form of resolution satisfies NJSA 104-13 because it gives the
public no real sense of what is being privately discussed1 To paraphrase the highest court of of
another state a body which only announces ldquolegal mattersrdquo or ldquopersonnel negotiationsrdquo for
going into executive session has said nothing It might has well have stated to the audience
ldquoLadies and gentlemen we are going into executive sessionrdquo and stopped there Hinds County
Board of Supervisors v Common Cause of Mississippi 551 So2d 107 114 (MS 1989)
Of course there can be no dispute that the Board of Education often has legitimate
reasons to meet in nonpublic session Among these reasons is the need to prevent the adverse
parties in litigation or contract negotiations from gaining an unfair advantage and to allow
members of the governing body to debate and deliberate personnel matters without public
scrutiny or participation But the need to discuss matters privately should not prevent the
public from being informed as precisely as possible of the topics that are being privately
discussed
For example suppose that Runnemede Board is being sued by a Mr Jones who was
injured after he slipped and fell on what he claims to be negligently maintained school
property Since the lawsuit is already a public record there is no public purpose served by
vaguely describing a private discussion of it as ldquostudent matters personnel contractual and
legal mattersrdquo Rather the resolution should at the very least describe the private discussion as
1 In January 2007 when I most recently litigated this issue Middlesex County Superior Court Judge Alexander P
Waugh issued a written decision in which he agreed with other court decisions that closed session resolutions
should contain as much information as is consistent with full public knowledge without doing any harm to the
public interest Judge Waughs decision and other case documents are on the Web at
httpogtfarchiveorgOGTFMonroeBOEWebreadypdf
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 36 of 77
3
ldquoDiscussion of slip and fall negligence suit Jones v Runnemede Board Docket No CAM-L-
012345-11rdquo This way the public has a very good sense of what the Boardrsquos private discussion is
about while the ability of the Board to develop its lawsuit strategy is not undermined
Using the same example suppose that Jonesrsquo attorney sent the Boardrsquos attorney an offer
to fully settle the lawsuit upon the Boardrsquos payment of $20000 While the Board would
obviously need to discuss how to respond to the offer in private lest Jones or his attorney
would be in the audience witnessing the discussion there is no reason why the public cannot be
informed in the NJSA 104-13 resolution that the Board will meet in private to discuss ldquoa
settlement offer received from the Plaintiff in the slip and fall negligence suit known as Jones v
Runnemede Board Docket No CAM-L-012345-11 in which the Plaintiff offers to settle the suit
in exchange for the Board paying him $20000rdquo While it may initially seem that this would
provide ldquotoo muchrdquo information to the public this concern disappears once it is realized that
the sole purpose of the exception2 that allows litigation matters to be discussed in private is to
keep the adverse party to the litigation in the dark regarding the Boardrsquos position3 Since in this
example the adverse party (ie Jones) already knows that he offered to settle the lawsuit for
$20000 there is no legitimate reason why the public should not also know of the tendered
settlement offer
As another example suppose that a personnel matter such as whether or not a Mrs
Smith a public works employee should be disciplined because of repeatedly arriving late to
work is to be discussed in closed session In such a case the amount of detail set forth in the
NJSA 104-13 resolution should correspond to the amount of detail that the Board and its
attorney predict will be publicly disclosed in the closed meetingrsquos minutes when those minutes
are made public
The standard that the Board is to use when determining how much information about a
personnel matter is to be disclosed in the closed sessionrsquos minutes is set forth in South Jersey
Publishing Company Inc v New Jersey Expressway Authority 124 NJ 478 (1991) That
standard is that a) the public needs information if it is properly fulfill its role of evaluating the
wisdom of governmental action or a decision not to act b) that New Jerseys strong public
policy requires that a public bodyrsquos actions and decisions to not act be disclosed in the bodys
closed meeting minutes along with sufficient facts and information to permit the public to
understand and appraise the reasonableness of the bodys determination and c) to the extent a
cognizable privacy interest may be compromised by the required disclosure the extent of
disclosure may be modified through redactions of the minutes provided the public interest in
disclosure is not subverted
2 NJSA104-12(b)(7) is to prevent adverse parties to litigation and contracts from learning the details of the
public bodyrsquos negotiation tactics and litigation strategy3 See the discussion in Paff v Washington Township Docket No MER-L-2205-07 and Nevin v Asbury Park City
Board 2005 WL 2847974 (App Div November 1 2005) which are on-line at
httpogtfarchiveorgOGTFWashingtonpdf (Nevin begins at page 44 of the PDF file at the link)
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 37 of 77
4
Thus regardless of whether the Board disciplines Ms Smith or chooses to not impose
discipline due to her lateness the outcome should be recorded in the closed meeting minutes
The question of whether that entry in the minutes should be redacted before the minutes are
made public requires a balancing of Ms Smithrsquos interest in keeping the disciplinary matter
private against the publicrsquos interest in effectively monitoring the Board If the Board with
counselrsquos advice determines after balancing these interests that the outcome will be published
unredacted in the closed sessionrsquos minutes (ie if the minutes will disclose to the public eg that
ldquoMs Smith was suspended for three days on account of her habitual latenessrdquo) then the exact
nature of the matter (ie that ldquothe Board will discuss disciplining Ms Smith for excessive
latenessrdquo) should be set forth in the closed meetingrsquos NJSA 104-13 resolution Inversely if the
Board determines that Ms Smithrsquos privacy interest exceeds the publicrsquos right to know then less
information (eg ldquothe Board will discuss disciplining an employee for excessive latenessrdquo)
should be set forth in the closed meetingrsquos NJSA 104-13 resolution
In other words if the officer or employee being discussed doesnt have a privacy interest
sufficient to withstand a citizens request for the executive session minutes why should not the
public know the topic of the executive session prior to it occurring
Irsquove attached as Exhibit pages 1 -3 is a model resolution that I would like the Board to
use in the future
Issue 2 Executive Session minutes
Attached as Exhibit Page 4 as an example are the Boardrsquos July 28 2010 executive session
minutes It is troubling that a meeting that lasted over an hour is being summed up in a single
sentence ldquoMr Phil Stern addressed the Board of Education about personnel issuesrdquo These
minutes are not ldquoreasonably comprehensiblerdquo as required by NJSA 104-14
The purpose of closed meeting minutes is not merely to inform the public of whatoccurred during the private session but also to create a record for the Board membersthemselves A Board member who is newly elected in 2012 should be able by referringsolely to the minutes to figure out what issues the Board addressed during any previouslyheld closed meeting This hypothetical Board member after reading the July 28 2010closed minutes could not possibly figure out which employees or officials Mr Stern wastalking about
Better practice would be to record closed minutes that are much morecomprehensive but to redact that material that must be shielded from public view Forexample the minutes could have said
Mr Stern addressed the Board of Education about the habitualtardiness of 2nd grade teacher Mary Doe and her propensity to eatlibrary paste and scream hysterically during fire drills Herecommended that she be sent for psychiatric evaluation
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 38 of 77
5
Of course if a member of the public requested these hypothetical minutes the Boardmay need to redact them in order to protect privacy interests The point however is thatregardless of whether unredacted closed meeting minutes are ever released to the publicthey should contain sufficient details so that the Board members themselves can monthsor years later know what was discussed
Attached as Exhibit pages 5 ndash 9 is an order recently entered in Schmidt et al v City of
Gloucester City et al Docket No CAM-L-1287-11 As you can see paraA(3) supports my position
that the Boardrsquos minutes are not ldquoreasonably comprehensiblerdquo as required by law
Conclusion
Since some public bodies do not take my requests for Meetings Act compliance seriously
I regret having to inform the Board that I will sue for declaratory and injunctive relief in
accordance with NJSA 104-16 unless I receive assurances from the Boardmdashwithin a few days
after its May 10 2011 meetingmdashthat it will work in good faith to improve the amount of
information in both its closed session resolutions and minutes If the Boardrsquos agenda is already
set for the May 10 2011 meeting please at least acknowledge this letter and let me know the
date of the meeting at which it will be considered
Thank you very much for your attention to this matter I look forward to hearing from
you
Sincerely
John Paff
cc Philip E Stern Esq w enc (via e-mail to psternasgllawcom )
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 39 of 77
RUNNEMEDE BOARD OF EDUCATIONRESOLUTION NO ___________
AUTHORIZING EXECUTIVE SESSION
WHEREAS while the Sen Byron M Baer Open Public Meetings Act (NJSA 104-6 et seq) requires allmeetings of the Runnemede Board of Education to be held in public NJSA 104-12(b) sets forth nine (9)types of matters that may lawfully be discussed in ldquoExecutive Sessionrdquo ie without the public beingpermitted to attend and
WHEREAS the Runnemede Board of Education has determined that _____ (insert number) issues arepermitted by NJSA 104-12(b) to be discussed without the public in attendance shall be discussed duringan Executive Session to be held on _________________________ 20____ at _______ PM and
WHEREAS the nine (9) exceptions to public meetings set forth in NJSA 104-12(b) are listed below andnext to each exception is a box within which the number of issues to be privately discussed that fall withinthat exception shall be written and after each exception is a space where additional information that willdisclose as much information about the discussion as possible without undermining the purpose of theexception shall be written
ldquo(1) Any matter which by express provision of Federal law State statute or rule of courtshall be rendered confidential or excluded from public discussionrdquo The legal citation to theprovision(s) at issue is__________________________ and the nature of the matter described asspecifically as possible without undermining the need for confidentiality is _______________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(2) Any matter in which the release of information would impair a right to receive fundsfrom the federal governmentrdquo The nature of the matter described as specifically as possiblewithout undermining the need for confidentiality is _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(3) Any material the disclosure of which constitutes an unwarranted invasion of individualprivacy such as any records data reports recommendations or other personal material ofany educational training social service medical health custodial child protectionrehabilitation legal defense welfare housing relocation insurance and similar program orinstitution operated by a public body pertaining to any specific individual admitted to orserved by such institution or program including but not limited to information relative tothe individuals personal and family circumstances and any material pertaining toadmission discharge treatment progress or condition of any individual unless theindividual concerned (or in the case of a minor or incompetent his guardian) shall requestin writing that the same be disclosed publiclyrdquo The nature of the matter described asspecifically as possible without undermining the need for confidentiality is______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(4) Any collective bargaining agreement or the terms and conditions of which are proposedfor inclusion in any collective bargaining agreement including the negotiation of terms andconditions with employees or representatives of employees of the public bodyrdquo The collectivebargaining contract(s) discussed are between the Board and ____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Exhibit Page 1Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 40 of 77
ldquo(5) Any matter involving the purchase lease or acquisition of real property with publicfunds the setting of bank rates or investment of public funds where it could adversely affectthe public interest if discussion of such matters were disclosedrdquo The nature of the matterdescribed as specifically as possible without undermining the need for confidentiality is____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(6) Any tactics and techniques utilized in protecting the safety and property of the publicprovided that their disclosure could impair such protection Any investigations of violationsor possible violations of the lawrdquo The nature of the matter described as specifically as possiblewithout undermining the need for confidentiality is ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(7) Any pending or anticipated litigation or contract negotiation in which the public body isor may become a party Any matters falling within the attorney-client privilege to the extentthat confidentiality is required in order for the attorney to exercise his ethicalduties as a lawyerrdquo The parties to and docket numbers of each item of litigation andor theparties to each contract discussed are __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ andnature of the discussion described as specifically as possible without undermining the need forconfidentiality is ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(8) Any matter involving the employment appointment termination of employment termsand conditions of employment evaluation of the performance promotion or disciplining ofany specific prospective public officer or employee or current public officer or employeeemployed or appointed by the public body unless all individual employees or appointees whoserights could be adversely affected request in writing that such matter or matters be discussed ata public meetingrdquo Subject to the balancing of the publicrsquos interest and the employeersquos privacyrights under South Jersey Publishing Co v New Jersey Expressway Authority 124 NJ 478 theemployee(s) and nature of the discussion described as specifically as possible withoutundermining the need for confidentiality are _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(9) Any deliberation of a public body occurring after a public hearing that may result in theimposition of a specific civil penalty upon the responding party or the suspension or loss of alicense or permit belonging to the responding party as a result of an act of omission forwhich the responding party bears responsibilityrdquo The nature of the matter described asspecifically as possible without undermining the need for confidentiality is______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
WHEREAS the length of the Executive Session is estimated to be ________ minutes after which the publicmeeting of the Board shall (circle one) reconvene and immediately adjourn or reconvene and proceed withbusiness
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Runnemede Board of Education will go into ExecutiveSession for only the above stated reasons
Exhibit Page 2Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 41 of 77
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board hereby declares that its discussion of the aforementionedsubject(s) will be made public at a time when the publicrsquos interest in disclosure is greater than any privacy orgovernmental interest being protected from disclosure For each of the above items the estimated date bywhich such disclosure can be made andor the occurrence that needs to take place before disclosure can bemade are listed below (attach separate sheet if necessary)
Subject of Discussion Estimated Date Necessary Occurrence
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Clerk at the present public meeting shall read aloud enough ofthis resolution so that members of the public in attendance can understand as precisely as possible thenature of the matters that will privately discussed
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Clerk on the next business day following this meeting shallfurnish a copy of this resolution to any member of the public who requests one at the fees allowed byNJSA 471A-1 et seq
_________________________________Board President
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS ATRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTIONAPPROVED BY THE RUNNEMEDE BOARD OF EDUCATION AT ITSPUBLIC MEETING HELD ON ______________________20___
_______________________________________Board Secretary
Exhibit Page 3Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 42 of 77
Exhibit Page 4Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 43 of 77
Exhibit Page 5Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 44 of 77
Exhibit Page 6Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 45 of 77
Exhibit Page 7Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 46 of 77
Exhibit Page 8Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 47 of 77
Exhibit Page 9Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 48 of 77
Subject Records RequestFrom John Paff ltpaffpoboxcomgtDate Sat 07 May 2011 161444 -0400To vcarmodyrunnemedeschoolsorgCC psternasgllawcom
Ms Carmody
Please accept this e-mail as my request for government records inaccordance with the Open Public Records Act (OPRA) and the commonlaw right of access Please respond and send all responsivedocuments to me via e-mail at paffpoboxcom If e-mail is notpossible please fax responses and responsive records to me at908-325-0129 Also I would appreciate it if you wouldacknowledge your receipt of this e-mail
Background
In response to a records request I recently received redactedexecutive session minutes for the following dates July 28 2010(first session) August 26 2010 February 2 2011 February 232011 (two sessions) and March 2 2011 Although Mr Stern providedme with a sheet entitled Documents Exempt From OPRA request thatpurports to explain these redactions I am still unclear as to whythe matter was redacted and whether it was lawfully redacted
First I dont understand references such as NJSA 471A-11(12)(c) The version of OPRA that I have (plus every other oneIve seen) does not have internal numbers within NJSA471A-11 Am I correct that NJSA 471A-11(12)(c) isintended to refer to the exemption for records in connection withcollective negotiations including documents and statements ofstrategy or negotiating position and that NJSA 471A-11(7)is intended to refer to any record within the attorney-clientprivilege This paragraph shall not be construed as exempting fromaccess attorney or consultant bills or invoices except that suchbills or invoices may be redacted to remove any informationprotected by the attorney-client privilege Please advise
Second even if I correctly corresponded the claimed exemptions tothe OPRA statute I have no way of knowing whether the mattersredacted are actually exempt from access When a custodiansuppresses any portion of any requested record NJSA471A-5(g) requires him or her to state the ldquospecific basisrdquo foreach suppressed element Beyond stating the ldquospecific basisrdquo foreach suppressed element he or she is required to ldquoproduce
Records Request
1 of 2 622011 810 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 49 of 77
specific reliable evidence sufficient to meet a statutorilyrecognized basis for confidentialityrdquo Courier News v HunterdonCounty Prosecutorrsquos Office 358 NJ Super 373 382-83 (App Div2003) Further he or she must explain each suppression in amanner that ldquowill enable other parties to assess the applicabilityof the privilege or protectionrdquo Paff v New Jersey Department ofLabor Board of Review 379 NJ Super 346 354-55 (2005)(quoting R 410-2(e))
Records requested
Runnemede Board of Education minutes for the following dates July28 2010 (728 pm session only) August 26 2010 February 22011 February 23 2011 (both sessions) and March 2 2011 Iwould like these minutes redacted as narrowly as possible if atall For each redaction I request a written explanation thatmeets the requirements of the case law cited above
cc Phil Stern
Records Request
2 of 2 622011 810 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 50 of 77
Subject Re Fwd Runnemede Board of Education Open PublicMeetings ActFrom John Paff ltpaffpoboxcomgtDate Mon 09 May 2011 134726 -0400To Nancy Ward ltnwardrunnemedeschoolsorggt
Thank you
On 592011 116 PM Nancy Ward wrote
Mr Paff
The Board has named me Custodian of Records Please direct allfuturecommunication to me The May 10 2011 meeting is theRe-organization ofthe Runnemede Board of Education The agenda is set and is verycomprehensive I intend to defer the letter and any discussionregardingits content to the next regular meeting the date of which willbe setat the re-organization tomorrow night In keeping with thedistrictsmeeting pattern that will be May 25 2011
Nancy BWard EdD
Superintendent of Schools
-----Original Message-----From John PaffSent 572011 42300 PMTo nwardrunnemedeschoolsorgCc vcarmodyrunnemedeschoolsorg psternasgllawcomSubject Fwd Runnemede Board of Education Open Public MeetingsAct
Here is another e-mail in case my original one should have beendirected to Ms Ward and not Ms Carmody
JP
-------- Original Message --------Subject Runnemede Board of Education Open Public Meetings ActDate Sat 07 May 2011 152319 -0400From John Paff
Re Fwd Runnemede Board of Education Open Public Meetings Act
1 of 2 622011 811 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 51 of 77
Reply-To paffpoboxcomTo vcarmodyrunnemedeschoolsorg psternasgllawcom
Ms Carmody and Mr Stern
Attached is a letter that I would like the Board to consider atits May10 2011 meeting Would you please a) acknowledge receipt of theletterand b) distribute it to all the Board members
Note that the last paragraph of the letter indicates that I willfilesuit against the Board if the issues in the letter arentaddressedSo if the Boards agenda for the May 10th meeting is so tightthat myletter cannot be accommodated please advise me of such andprovide ameeting date where my letter will be addressed so that I knowthat I amnot being ignored
Thank you
John Paff ChairmanNew Jersey Libertarian PartysOpen Government Advocacy Project
Re Fwd Runnemede Board of Education Open Public Meetings Act
2 of 2 622011 811 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 52 of 77
Subject OPRA RequestFrom Philip Stern ltpsternasgllawcomgtDate Fri 20 May 2011 161015 -0500To paffpoboxcom ltpaffpoboxcomgtCC Nancy Ward ltnwardrunnemedeschoolsorggt
Mr Paff please find attached to this email a response to your request forbusiness records Please note that in providing you with the attachedrecords the Runnemede Borough Board of Education waives no rightsregarding the attorney-client privilege Do not hesitate to call me if youhave any questions Phil Stern
Philip E SternAdams Stern Gutierrez amp Lattiboudere LLCThe Legal Center1037 Raymond Blvd Suite 710Newark New Jersey 07102(973) 735-2742 (office telephone)(201) 914-2415 (cellular telephone)(973) 735-2743 (office telefax)
May 20 Paff responsepdf
Content-DescriptionMay 20 Paffresponsepdf
Content-Type applicationpdf
Content-Encoding base64
OPRA Request
1 of 1 622011 815 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 53 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 54 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 55 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 56 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 57 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 58 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 59 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 60 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 61 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 62 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 63 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 64 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 65 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 66 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 67 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 68 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 69 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 70 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 71 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 72 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 73 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 74 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 75 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 76 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 77 of 77
- Civil Complaint
- Exhibits
-
New Jersey Libertarian PartyOpen Government Advocacy Project
John Paff Chairman
PO Box 5424
Somerset NJ 08875-5424
Phone 732-873-1251 - Fax 908-325-0129
Email lpsmcpoboxcom
May 7 2011
Hon Colleen Kurth President and members of the
Runnemede Board of Education
505 W Third Ave
Runnemede NJ 08078 (via e-mail to vcarmodyrunnemedeschoolsorg )
Dear President Kurth and Board members
I write both individually and on behalf the New Jersey Libertarian Partys Open
Government Advocacy Project to comment on 1) the manner in which the Board of Education
goes into nonpublic (ie executive or closed) session and 2) the level of detail contained within
the Boardrsquos executive session minutes
Issue 1 Executive Session resolutions
As you are aware the Senator Byron M Baer Open Public Meetings Act requires public
bodies such as the Runnemede Board of Education to publicly pass a resolution before
excluding the public from a meeting The statute that requires the resolution states
NJSA 104-13mdashClosed meetings resolution to conduct
No public body shall exclude the public from any meeting to discuss any
matter described in subsection 7 b (104-12) until the public body shall
first adopt a resolution at a meeting to which the public shall be admitted
a Stating the general nature of the subject to be discussed and
b Stating as precisely as possible the time when and the circumstances
under which the discussion conducted in closed session of the public body
can be disclosed to the public
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 35 of 77
2
By way of a recent records request I received resolutions which purport to authorize
executive sessions intended to be held by the Board of Education on July 28 2010 (2 sessions)
August 20 2010 February 2 1011 February 23 2011 (2 sessions) and March 2 2011 Those
resolutions which are virtually identical to each other state
Executive Session to discuss student matters personnel contractual and
legal matters [time and a statement as to whether action will be
taken]
[identity of maker of motion etc]
Resolved that pursuant to Section 8 of the Public Meetings Act the public
shall be excluded from that portion of the meeting involving the discussion
of personnel legal and contractual matters Further resolved that
discussion of such subject matters discussed in Executive Session can be
disclosed to public upon official action if any at the conclusion of the
executive session or at a public session at some later date
I dont think that this form of resolution satisfies NJSA 104-13 because it gives the
public no real sense of what is being privately discussed1 To paraphrase the highest court of of
another state a body which only announces ldquolegal mattersrdquo or ldquopersonnel negotiationsrdquo for
going into executive session has said nothing It might has well have stated to the audience
ldquoLadies and gentlemen we are going into executive sessionrdquo and stopped there Hinds County
Board of Supervisors v Common Cause of Mississippi 551 So2d 107 114 (MS 1989)
Of course there can be no dispute that the Board of Education often has legitimate
reasons to meet in nonpublic session Among these reasons is the need to prevent the adverse
parties in litigation or contract negotiations from gaining an unfair advantage and to allow
members of the governing body to debate and deliberate personnel matters without public
scrutiny or participation But the need to discuss matters privately should not prevent the
public from being informed as precisely as possible of the topics that are being privately
discussed
For example suppose that Runnemede Board is being sued by a Mr Jones who was
injured after he slipped and fell on what he claims to be negligently maintained school
property Since the lawsuit is already a public record there is no public purpose served by
vaguely describing a private discussion of it as ldquostudent matters personnel contractual and
legal mattersrdquo Rather the resolution should at the very least describe the private discussion as
1 In January 2007 when I most recently litigated this issue Middlesex County Superior Court Judge Alexander P
Waugh issued a written decision in which he agreed with other court decisions that closed session resolutions
should contain as much information as is consistent with full public knowledge without doing any harm to the
public interest Judge Waughs decision and other case documents are on the Web at
httpogtfarchiveorgOGTFMonroeBOEWebreadypdf
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 36 of 77
3
ldquoDiscussion of slip and fall negligence suit Jones v Runnemede Board Docket No CAM-L-
012345-11rdquo This way the public has a very good sense of what the Boardrsquos private discussion is
about while the ability of the Board to develop its lawsuit strategy is not undermined
Using the same example suppose that Jonesrsquo attorney sent the Boardrsquos attorney an offer
to fully settle the lawsuit upon the Boardrsquos payment of $20000 While the Board would
obviously need to discuss how to respond to the offer in private lest Jones or his attorney
would be in the audience witnessing the discussion there is no reason why the public cannot be
informed in the NJSA 104-13 resolution that the Board will meet in private to discuss ldquoa
settlement offer received from the Plaintiff in the slip and fall negligence suit known as Jones v
Runnemede Board Docket No CAM-L-012345-11 in which the Plaintiff offers to settle the suit
in exchange for the Board paying him $20000rdquo While it may initially seem that this would
provide ldquotoo muchrdquo information to the public this concern disappears once it is realized that
the sole purpose of the exception2 that allows litigation matters to be discussed in private is to
keep the adverse party to the litigation in the dark regarding the Boardrsquos position3 Since in this
example the adverse party (ie Jones) already knows that he offered to settle the lawsuit for
$20000 there is no legitimate reason why the public should not also know of the tendered
settlement offer
As another example suppose that a personnel matter such as whether or not a Mrs
Smith a public works employee should be disciplined because of repeatedly arriving late to
work is to be discussed in closed session In such a case the amount of detail set forth in the
NJSA 104-13 resolution should correspond to the amount of detail that the Board and its
attorney predict will be publicly disclosed in the closed meetingrsquos minutes when those minutes
are made public
The standard that the Board is to use when determining how much information about a
personnel matter is to be disclosed in the closed sessionrsquos minutes is set forth in South Jersey
Publishing Company Inc v New Jersey Expressway Authority 124 NJ 478 (1991) That
standard is that a) the public needs information if it is properly fulfill its role of evaluating the
wisdom of governmental action or a decision not to act b) that New Jerseys strong public
policy requires that a public bodyrsquos actions and decisions to not act be disclosed in the bodys
closed meeting minutes along with sufficient facts and information to permit the public to
understand and appraise the reasonableness of the bodys determination and c) to the extent a
cognizable privacy interest may be compromised by the required disclosure the extent of
disclosure may be modified through redactions of the minutes provided the public interest in
disclosure is not subverted
2 NJSA104-12(b)(7) is to prevent adverse parties to litigation and contracts from learning the details of the
public bodyrsquos negotiation tactics and litigation strategy3 See the discussion in Paff v Washington Township Docket No MER-L-2205-07 and Nevin v Asbury Park City
Board 2005 WL 2847974 (App Div November 1 2005) which are on-line at
httpogtfarchiveorgOGTFWashingtonpdf (Nevin begins at page 44 of the PDF file at the link)
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 37 of 77
4
Thus regardless of whether the Board disciplines Ms Smith or chooses to not impose
discipline due to her lateness the outcome should be recorded in the closed meeting minutes
The question of whether that entry in the minutes should be redacted before the minutes are
made public requires a balancing of Ms Smithrsquos interest in keeping the disciplinary matter
private against the publicrsquos interest in effectively monitoring the Board If the Board with
counselrsquos advice determines after balancing these interests that the outcome will be published
unredacted in the closed sessionrsquos minutes (ie if the minutes will disclose to the public eg that
ldquoMs Smith was suspended for three days on account of her habitual latenessrdquo) then the exact
nature of the matter (ie that ldquothe Board will discuss disciplining Ms Smith for excessive
latenessrdquo) should be set forth in the closed meetingrsquos NJSA 104-13 resolution Inversely if the
Board determines that Ms Smithrsquos privacy interest exceeds the publicrsquos right to know then less
information (eg ldquothe Board will discuss disciplining an employee for excessive latenessrdquo)
should be set forth in the closed meetingrsquos NJSA 104-13 resolution
In other words if the officer or employee being discussed doesnt have a privacy interest
sufficient to withstand a citizens request for the executive session minutes why should not the
public know the topic of the executive session prior to it occurring
Irsquove attached as Exhibit pages 1 -3 is a model resolution that I would like the Board to
use in the future
Issue 2 Executive Session minutes
Attached as Exhibit Page 4 as an example are the Boardrsquos July 28 2010 executive session
minutes It is troubling that a meeting that lasted over an hour is being summed up in a single
sentence ldquoMr Phil Stern addressed the Board of Education about personnel issuesrdquo These
minutes are not ldquoreasonably comprehensiblerdquo as required by NJSA 104-14
The purpose of closed meeting minutes is not merely to inform the public of whatoccurred during the private session but also to create a record for the Board membersthemselves A Board member who is newly elected in 2012 should be able by referringsolely to the minutes to figure out what issues the Board addressed during any previouslyheld closed meeting This hypothetical Board member after reading the July 28 2010closed minutes could not possibly figure out which employees or officials Mr Stern wastalking about
Better practice would be to record closed minutes that are much morecomprehensive but to redact that material that must be shielded from public view Forexample the minutes could have said
Mr Stern addressed the Board of Education about the habitualtardiness of 2nd grade teacher Mary Doe and her propensity to eatlibrary paste and scream hysterically during fire drills Herecommended that she be sent for psychiatric evaluation
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 38 of 77
5
Of course if a member of the public requested these hypothetical minutes the Boardmay need to redact them in order to protect privacy interests The point however is thatregardless of whether unredacted closed meeting minutes are ever released to the publicthey should contain sufficient details so that the Board members themselves can monthsor years later know what was discussed
Attached as Exhibit pages 5 ndash 9 is an order recently entered in Schmidt et al v City of
Gloucester City et al Docket No CAM-L-1287-11 As you can see paraA(3) supports my position
that the Boardrsquos minutes are not ldquoreasonably comprehensiblerdquo as required by law
Conclusion
Since some public bodies do not take my requests for Meetings Act compliance seriously
I regret having to inform the Board that I will sue for declaratory and injunctive relief in
accordance with NJSA 104-16 unless I receive assurances from the Boardmdashwithin a few days
after its May 10 2011 meetingmdashthat it will work in good faith to improve the amount of
information in both its closed session resolutions and minutes If the Boardrsquos agenda is already
set for the May 10 2011 meeting please at least acknowledge this letter and let me know the
date of the meeting at which it will be considered
Thank you very much for your attention to this matter I look forward to hearing from
you
Sincerely
John Paff
cc Philip E Stern Esq w enc (via e-mail to psternasgllawcom )
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 39 of 77
RUNNEMEDE BOARD OF EDUCATIONRESOLUTION NO ___________
AUTHORIZING EXECUTIVE SESSION
WHEREAS while the Sen Byron M Baer Open Public Meetings Act (NJSA 104-6 et seq) requires allmeetings of the Runnemede Board of Education to be held in public NJSA 104-12(b) sets forth nine (9)types of matters that may lawfully be discussed in ldquoExecutive Sessionrdquo ie without the public beingpermitted to attend and
WHEREAS the Runnemede Board of Education has determined that _____ (insert number) issues arepermitted by NJSA 104-12(b) to be discussed without the public in attendance shall be discussed duringan Executive Session to be held on _________________________ 20____ at _______ PM and
WHEREAS the nine (9) exceptions to public meetings set forth in NJSA 104-12(b) are listed below andnext to each exception is a box within which the number of issues to be privately discussed that fall withinthat exception shall be written and after each exception is a space where additional information that willdisclose as much information about the discussion as possible without undermining the purpose of theexception shall be written
ldquo(1) Any matter which by express provision of Federal law State statute or rule of courtshall be rendered confidential or excluded from public discussionrdquo The legal citation to theprovision(s) at issue is__________________________ and the nature of the matter described asspecifically as possible without undermining the need for confidentiality is _______________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(2) Any matter in which the release of information would impair a right to receive fundsfrom the federal governmentrdquo The nature of the matter described as specifically as possiblewithout undermining the need for confidentiality is _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(3) Any material the disclosure of which constitutes an unwarranted invasion of individualprivacy such as any records data reports recommendations or other personal material ofany educational training social service medical health custodial child protectionrehabilitation legal defense welfare housing relocation insurance and similar program orinstitution operated by a public body pertaining to any specific individual admitted to orserved by such institution or program including but not limited to information relative tothe individuals personal and family circumstances and any material pertaining toadmission discharge treatment progress or condition of any individual unless theindividual concerned (or in the case of a minor or incompetent his guardian) shall requestin writing that the same be disclosed publiclyrdquo The nature of the matter described asspecifically as possible without undermining the need for confidentiality is______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(4) Any collective bargaining agreement or the terms and conditions of which are proposedfor inclusion in any collective bargaining agreement including the negotiation of terms andconditions with employees or representatives of employees of the public bodyrdquo The collectivebargaining contract(s) discussed are between the Board and ____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Exhibit Page 1Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 40 of 77
ldquo(5) Any matter involving the purchase lease or acquisition of real property with publicfunds the setting of bank rates or investment of public funds where it could adversely affectthe public interest if discussion of such matters were disclosedrdquo The nature of the matterdescribed as specifically as possible without undermining the need for confidentiality is____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(6) Any tactics and techniques utilized in protecting the safety and property of the publicprovided that their disclosure could impair such protection Any investigations of violationsor possible violations of the lawrdquo The nature of the matter described as specifically as possiblewithout undermining the need for confidentiality is ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(7) Any pending or anticipated litigation or contract negotiation in which the public body isor may become a party Any matters falling within the attorney-client privilege to the extentthat confidentiality is required in order for the attorney to exercise his ethicalduties as a lawyerrdquo The parties to and docket numbers of each item of litigation andor theparties to each contract discussed are __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ andnature of the discussion described as specifically as possible without undermining the need forconfidentiality is ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(8) Any matter involving the employment appointment termination of employment termsand conditions of employment evaluation of the performance promotion or disciplining ofany specific prospective public officer or employee or current public officer or employeeemployed or appointed by the public body unless all individual employees or appointees whoserights could be adversely affected request in writing that such matter or matters be discussed ata public meetingrdquo Subject to the balancing of the publicrsquos interest and the employeersquos privacyrights under South Jersey Publishing Co v New Jersey Expressway Authority 124 NJ 478 theemployee(s) and nature of the discussion described as specifically as possible withoutundermining the need for confidentiality are _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(9) Any deliberation of a public body occurring after a public hearing that may result in theimposition of a specific civil penalty upon the responding party or the suspension or loss of alicense or permit belonging to the responding party as a result of an act of omission forwhich the responding party bears responsibilityrdquo The nature of the matter described asspecifically as possible without undermining the need for confidentiality is______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
WHEREAS the length of the Executive Session is estimated to be ________ minutes after which the publicmeeting of the Board shall (circle one) reconvene and immediately adjourn or reconvene and proceed withbusiness
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Runnemede Board of Education will go into ExecutiveSession for only the above stated reasons
Exhibit Page 2Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 41 of 77
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board hereby declares that its discussion of the aforementionedsubject(s) will be made public at a time when the publicrsquos interest in disclosure is greater than any privacy orgovernmental interest being protected from disclosure For each of the above items the estimated date bywhich such disclosure can be made andor the occurrence that needs to take place before disclosure can bemade are listed below (attach separate sheet if necessary)
Subject of Discussion Estimated Date Necessary Occurrence
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Clerk at the present public meeting shall read aloud enough ofthis resolution so that members of the public in attendance can understand as precisely as possible thenature of the matters that will privately discussed
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Clerk on the next business day following this meeting shallfurnish a copy of this resolution to any member of the public who requests one at the fees allowed byNJSA 471A-1 et seq
_________________________________Board President
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS ATRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTIONAPPROVED BY THE RUNNEMEDE BOARD OF EDUCATION AT ITSPUBLIC MEETING HELD ON ______________________20___
_______________________________________Board Secretary
Exhibit Page 3Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 42 of 77
Exhibit Page 4Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 43 of 77
Exhibit Page 5Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 44 of 77
Exhibit Page 6Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 45 of 77
Exhibit Page 7Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 46 of 77
Exhibit Page 8Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 47 of 77
Exhibit Page 9Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 48 of 77
Subject Records RequestFrom John Paff ltpaffpoboxcomgtDate Sat 07 May 2011 161444 -0400To vcarmodyrunnemedeschoolsorgCC psternasgllawcom
Ms Carmody
Please accept this e-mail as my request for government records inaccordance with the Open Public Records Act (OPRA) and the commonlaw right of access Please respond and send all responsivedocuments to me via e-mail at paffpoboxcom If e-mail is notpossible please fax responses and responsive records to me at908-325-0129 Also I would appreciate it if you wouldacknowledge your receipt of this e-mail
Background
In response to a records request I recently received redactedexecutive session minutes for the following dates July 28 2010(first session) August 26 2010 February 2 2011 February 232011 (two sessions) and March 2 2011 Although Mr Stern providedme with a sheet entitled Documents Exempt From OPRA request thatpurports to explain these redactions I am still unclear as to whythe matter was redacted and whether it was lawfully redacted
First I dont understand references such as NJSA 471A-11(12)(c) The version of OPRA that I have (plus every other oneIve seen) does not have internal numbers within NJSA471A-11 Am I correct that NJSA 471A-11(12)(c) isintended to refer to the exemption for records in connection withcollective negotiations including documents and statements ofstrategy or negotiating position and that NJSA 471A-11(7)is intended to refer to any record within the attorney-clientprivilege This paragraph shall not be construed as exempting fromaccess attorney or consultant bills or invoices except that suchbills or invoices may be redacted to remove any informationprotected by the attorney-client privilege Please advise
Second even if I correctly corresponded the claimed exemptions tothe OPRA statute I have no way of knowing whether the mattersredacted are actually exempt from access When a custodiansuppresses any portion of any requested record NJSA471A-5(g) requires him or her to state the ldquospecific basisrdquo foreach suppressed element Beyond stating the ldquospecific basisrdquo foreach suppressed element he or she is required to ldquoproduce
Records Request
1 of 2 622011 810 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 49 of 77
specific reliable evidence sufficient to meet a statutorilyrecognized basis for confidentialityrdquo Courier News v HunterdonCounty Prosecutorrsquos Office 358 NJ Super 373 382-83 (App Div2003) Further he or she must explain each suppression in amanner that ldquowill enable other parties to assess the applicabilityof the privilege or protectionrdquo Paff v New Jersey Department ofLabor Board of Review 379 NJ Super 346 354-55 (2005)(quoting R 410-2(e))
Records requested
Runnemede Board of Education minutes for the following dates July28 2010 (728 pm session only) August 26 2010 February 22011 February 23 2011 (both sessions) and March 2 2011 Iwould like these minutes redacted as narrowly as possible if atall For each redaction I request a written explanation thatmeets the requirements of the case law cited above
cc Phil Stern
Records Request
2 of 2 622011 810 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 50 of 77
Subject Re Fwd Runnemede Board of Education Open PublicMeetings ActFrom John Paff ltpaffpoboxcomgtDate Mon 09 May 2011 134726 -0400To Nancy Ward ltnwardrunnemedeschoolsorggt
Thank you
On 592011 116 PM Nancy Ward wrote
Mr Paff
The Board has named me Custodian of Records Please direct allfuturecommunication to me The May 10 2011 meeting is theRe-organization ofthe Runnemede Board of Education The agenda is set and is verycomprehensive I intend to defer the letter and any discussionregardingits content to the next regular meeting the date of which willbe setat the re-organization tomorrow night In keeping with thedistrictsmeeting pattern that will be May 25 2011
Nancy BWard EdD
Superintendent of Schools
-----Original Message-----From John PaffSent 572011 42300 PMTo nwardrunnemedeschoolsorgCc vcarmodyrunnemedeschoolsorg psternasgllawcomSubject Fwd Runnemede Board of Education Open Public MeetingsAct
Here is another e-mail in case my original one should have beendirected to Ms Ward and not Ms Carmody
JP
-------- Original Message --------Subject Runnemede Board of Education Open Public Meetings ActDate Sat 07 May 2011 152319 -0400From John Paff
Re Fwd Runnemede Board of Education Open Public Meetings Act
1 of 2 622011 811 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 51 of 77
Reply-To paffpoboxcomTo vcarmodyrunnemedeschoolsorg psternasgllawcom
Ms Carmody and Mr Stern
Attached is a letter that I would like the Board to consider atits May10 2011 meeting Would you please a) acknowledge receipt of theletterand b) distribute it to all the Board members
Note that the last paragraph of the letter indicates that I willfilesuit against the Board if the issues in the letter arentaddressedSo if the Boards agenda for the May 10th meeting is so tightthat myletter cannot be accommodated please advise me of such andprovide ameeting date where my letter will be addressed so that I knowthat I amnot being ignored
Thank you
John Paff ChairmanNew Jersey Libertarian PartysOpen Government Advocacy Project
Re Fwd Runnemede Board of Education Open Public Meetings Act
2 of 2 622011 811 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 52 of 77
Subject OPRA RequestFrom Philip Stern ltpsternasgllawcomgtDate Fri 20 May 2011 161015 -0500To paffpoboxcom ltpaffpoboxcomgtCC Nancy Ward ltnwardrunnemedeschoolsorggt
Mr Paff please find attached to this email a response to your request forbusiness records Please note that in providing you with the attachedrecords the Runnemede Borough Board of Education waives no rightsregarding the attorney-client privilege Do not hesitate to call me if youhave any questions Phil Stern
Philip E SternAdams Stern Gutierrez amp Lattiboudere LLCThe Legal Center1037 Raymond Blvd Suite 710Newark New Jersey 07102(973) 735-2742 (office telephone)(201) 914-2415 (cellular telephone)(973) 735-2743 (office telefax)
May 20 Paff responsepdf
Content-DescriptionMay 20 Paffresponsepdf
Content-Type applicationpdf
Content-Encoding base64
OPRA Request
1 of 1 622011 815 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 53 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 54 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 55 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 56 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 57 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 58 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 59 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 60 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 61 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 62 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 63 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 64 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 65 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 66 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 67 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 68 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 69 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 70 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 71 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 72 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 73 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 74 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 75 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 76 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 77 of 77
- Civil Complaint
- Exhibits
-
2
By way of a recent records request I received resolutions which purport to authorize
executive sessions intended to be held by the Board of Education on July 28 2010 (2 sessions)
August 20 2010 February 2 1011 February 23 2011 (2 sessions) and March 2 2011 Those
resolutions which are virtually identical to each other state
Executive Session to discuss student matters personnel contractual and
legal matters [time and a statement as to whether action will be
taken]
[identity of maker of motion etc]
Resolved that pursuant to Section 8 of the Public Meetings Act the public
shall be excluded from that portion of the meeting involving the discussion
of personnel legal and contractual matters Further resolved that
discussion of such subject matters discussed in Executive Session can be
disclosed to public upon official action if any at the conclusion of the
executive session or at a public session at some later date
I dont think that this form of resolution satisfies NJSA 104-13 because it gives the
public no real sense of what is being privately discussed1 To paraphrase the highest court of of
another state a body which only announces ldquolegal mattersrdquo or ldquopersonnel negotiationsrdquo for
going into executive session has said nothing It might has well have stated to the audience
ldquoLadies and gentlemen we are going into executive sessionrdquo and stopped there Hinds County
Board of Supervisors v Common Cause of Mississippi 551 So2d 107 114 (MS 1989)
Of course there can be no dispute that the Board of Education often has legitimate
reasons to meet in nonpublic session Among these reasons is the need to prevent the adverse
parties in litigation or contract negotiations from gaining an unfair advantage and to allow
members of the governing body to debate and deliberate personnel matters without public
scrutiny or participation But the need to discuss matters privately should not prevent the
public from being informed as precisely as possible of the topics that are being privately
discussed
For example suppose that Runnemede Board is being sued by a Mr Jones who was
injured after he slipped and fell on what he claims to be negligently maintained school
property Since the lawsuit is already a public record there is no public purpose served by
vaguely describing a private discussion of it as ldquostudent matters personnel contractual and
legal mattersrdquo Rather the resolution should at the very least describe the private discussion as
1 In January 2007 when I most recently litigated this issue Middlesex County Superior Court Judge Alexander P
Waugh issued a written decision in which he agreed with other court decisions that closed session resolutions
should contain as much information as is consistent with full public knowledge without doing any harm to the
public interest Judge Waughs decision and other case documents are on the Web at
httpogtfarchiveorgOGTFMonroeBOEWebreadypdf
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 36 of 77
3
ldquoDiscussion of slip and fall negligence suit Jones v Runnemede Board Docket No CAM-L-
012345-11rdquo This way the public has a very good sense of what the Boardrsquos private discussion is
about while the ability of the Board to develop its lawsuit strategy is not undermined
Using the same example suppose that Jonesrsquo attorney sent the Boardrsquos attorney an offer
to fully settle the lawsuit upon the Boardrsquos payment of $20000 While the Board would
obviously need to discuss how to respond to the offer in private lest Jones or his attorney
would be in the audience witnessing the discussion there is no reason why the public cannot be
informed in the NJSA 104-13 resolution that the Board will meet in private to discuss ldquoa
settlement offer received from the Plaintiff in the slip and fall negligence suit known as Jones v
Runnemede Board Docket No CAM-L-012345-11 in which the Plaintiff offers to settle the suit
in exchange for the Board paying him $20000rdquo While it may initially seem that this would
provide ldquotoo muchrdquo information to the public this concern disappears once it is realized that
the sole purpose of the exception2 that allows litigation matters to be discussed in private is to
keep the adverse party to the litigation in the dark regarding the Boardrsquos position3 Since in this
example the adverse party (ie Jones) already knows that he offered to settle the lawsuit for
$20000 there is no legitimate reason why the public should not also know of the tendered
settlement offer
As another example suppose that a personnel matter such as whether or not a Mrs
Smith a public works employee should be disciplined because of repeatedly arriving late to
work is to be discussed in closed session In such a case the amount of detail set forth in the
NJSA 104-13 resolution should correspond to the amount of detail that the Board and its
attorney predict will be publicly disclosed in the closed meetingrsquos minutes when those minutes
are made public
The standard that the Board is to use when determining how much information about a
personnel matter is to be disclosed in the closed sessionrsquos minutes is set forth in South Jersey
Publishing Company Inc v New Jersey Expressway Authority 124 NJ 478 (1991) That
standard is that a) the public needs information if it is properly fulfill its role of evaluating the
wisdom of governmental action or a decision not to act b) that New Jerseys strong public
policy requires that a public bodyrsquos actions and decisions to not act be disclosed in the bodys
closed meeting minutes along with sufficient facts and information to permit the public to
understand and appraise the reasonableness of the bodys determination and c) to the extent a
cognizable privacy interest may be compromised by the required disclosure the extent of
disclosure may be modified through redactions of the minutes provided the public interest in
disclosure is not subverted
2 NJSA104-12(b)(7) is to prevent adverse parties to litigation and contracts from learning the details of the
public bodyrsquos negotiation tactics and litigation strategy3 See the discussion in Paff v Washington Township Docket No MER-L-2205-07 and Nevin v Asbury Park City
Board 2005 WL 2847974 (App Div November 1 2005) which are on-line at
httpogtfarchiveorgOGTFWashingtonpdf (Nevin begins at page 44 of the PDF file at the link)
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 37 of 77
4
Thus regardless of whether the Board disciplines Ms Smith or chooses to not impose
discipline due to her lateness the outcome should be recorded in the closed meeting minutes
The question of whether that entry in the minutes should be redacted before the minutes are
made public requires a balancing of Ms Smithrsquos interest in keeping the disciplinary matter
private against the publicrsquos interest in effectively monitoring the Board If the Board with
counselrsquos advice determines after balancing these interests that the outcome will be published
unredacted in the closed sessionrsquos minutes (ie if the minutes will disclose to the public eg that
ldquoMs Smith was suspended for three days on account of her habitual latenessrdquo) then the exact
nature of the matter (ie that ldquothe Board will discuss disciplining Ms Smith for excessive
latenessrdquo) should be set forth in the closed meetingrsquos NJSA 104-13 resolution Inversely if the
Board determines that Ms Smithrsquos privacy interest exceeds the publicrsquos right to know then less
information (eg ldquothe Board will discuss disciplining an employee for excessive latenessrdquo)
should be set forth in the closed meetingrsquos NJSA 104-13 resolution
In other words if the officer or employee being discussed doesnt have a privacy interest
sufficient to withstand a citizens request for the executive session minutes why should not the
public know the topic of the executive session prior to it occurring
Irsquove attached as Exhibit pages 1 -3 is a model resolution that I would like the Board to
use in the future
Issue 2 Executive Session minutes
Attached as Exhibit Page 4 as an example are the Boardrsquos July 28 2010 executive session
minutes It is troubling that a meeting that lasted over an hour is being summed up in a single
sentence ldquoMr Phil Stern addressed the Board of Education about personnel issuesrdquo These
minutes are not ldquoreasonably comprehensiblerdquo as required by NJSA 104-14
The purpose of closed meeting minutes is not merely to inform the public of whatoccurred during the private session but also to create a record for the Board membersthemselves A Board member who is newly elected in 2012 should be able by referringsolely to the minutes to figure out what issues the Board addressed during any previouslyheld closed meeting This hypothetical Board member after reading the July 28 2010closed minutes could not possibly figure out which employees or officials Mr Stern wastalking about
Better practice would be to record closed minutes that are much morecomprehensive but to redact that material that must be shielded from public view Forexample the minutes could have said
Mr Stern addressed the Board of Education about the habitualtardiness of 2nd grade teacher Mary Doe and her propensity to eatlibrary paste and scream hysterically during fire drills Herecommended that she be sent for psychiatric evaluation
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 38 of 77
5
Of course if a member of the public requested these hypothetical minutes the Boardmay need to redact them in order to protect privacy interests The point however is thatregardless of whether unredacted closed meeting minutes are ever released to the publicthey should contain sufficient details so that the Board members themselves can monthsor years later know what was discussed
Attached as Exhibit pages 5 ndash 9 is an order recently entered in Schmidt et al v City of
Gloucester City et al Docket No CAM-L-1287-11 As you can see paraA(3) supports my position
that the Boardrsquos minutes are not ldquoreasonably comprehensiblerdquo as required by law
Conclusion
Since some public bodies do not take my requests for Meetings Act compliance seriously
I regret having to inform the Board that I will sue for declaratory and injunctive relief in
accordance with NJSA 104-16 unless I receive assurances from the Boardmdashwithin a few days
after its May 10 2011 meetingmdashthat it will work in good faith to improve the amount of
information in both its closed session resolutions and minutes If the Boardrsquos agenda is already
set for the May 10 2011 meeting please at least acknowledge this letter and let me know the
date of the meeting at which it will be considered
Thank you very much for your attention to this matter I look forward to hearing from
you
Sincerely
John Paff
cc Philip E Stern Esq w enc (via e-mail to psternasgllawcom )
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 39 of 77
RUNNEMEDE BOARD OF EDUCATIONRESOLUTION NO ___________
AUTHORIZING EXECUTIVE SESSION
WHEREAS while the Sen Byron M Baer Open Public Meetings Act (NJSA 104-6 et seq) requires allmeetings of the Runnemede Board of Education to be held in public NJSA 104-12(b) sets forth nine (9)types of matters that may lawfully be discussed in ldquoExecutive Sessionrdquo ie without the public beingpermitted to attend and
WHEREAS the Runnemede Board of Education has determined that _____ (insert number) issues arepermitted by NJSA 104-12(b) to be discussed without the public in attendance shall be discussed duringan Executive Session to be held on _________________________ 20____ at _______ PM and
WHEREAS the nine (9) exceptions to public meetings set forth in NJSA 104-12(b) are listed below andnext to each exception is a box within which the number of issues to be privately discussed that fall withinthat exception shall be written and after each exception is a space where additional information that willdisclose as much information about the discussion as possible without undermining the purpose of theexception shall be written
ldquo(1) Any matter which by express provision of Federal law State statute or rule of courtshall be rendered confidential or excluded from public discussionrdquo The legal citation to theprovision(s) at issue is__________________________ and the nature of the matter described asspecifically as possible without undermining the need for confidentiality is _______________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(2) Any matter in which the release of information would impair a right to receive fundsfrom the federal governmentrdquo The nature of the matter described as specifically as possiblewithout undermining the need for confidentiality is _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(3) Any material the disclosure of which constitutes an unwarranted invasion of individualprivacy such as any records data reports recommendations or other personal material ofany educational training social service medical health custodial child protectionrehabilitation legal defense welfare housing relocation insurance and similar program orinstitution operated by a public body pertaining to any specific individual admitted to orserved by such institution or program including but not limited to information relative tothe individuals personal and family circumstances and any material pertaining toadmission discharge treatment progress or condition of any individual unless theindividual concerned (or in the case of a minor or incompetent his guardian) shall requestin writing that the same be disclosed publiclyrdquo The nature of the matter described asspecifically as possible without undermining the need for confidentiality is______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(4) Any collective bargaining agreement or the terms and conditions of which are proposedfor inclusion in any collective bargaining agreement including the negotiation of terms andconditions with employees or representatives of employees of the public bodyrdquo The collectivebargaining contract(s) discussed are between the Board and ____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Exhibit Page 1Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 40 of 77
ldquo(5) Any matter involving the purchase lease or acquisition of real property with publicfunds the setting of bank rates or investment of public funds where it could adversely affectthe public interest if discussion of such matters were disclosedrdquo The nature of the matterdescribed as specifically as possible without undermining the need for confidentiality is____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(6) Any tactics and techniques utilized in protecting the safety and property of the publicprovided that their disclosure could impair such protection Any investigations of violationsor possible violations of the lawrdquo The nature of the matter described as specifically as possiblewithout undermining the need for confidentiality is ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(7) Any pending or anticipated litigation or contract negotiation in which the public body isor may become a party Any matters falling within the attorney-client privilege to the extentthat confidentiality is required in order for the attorney to exercise his ethicalduties as a lawyerrdquo The parties to and docket numbers of each item of litigation andor theparties to each contract discussed are __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ andnature of the discussion described as specifically as possible without undermining the need forconfidentiality is ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(8) Any matter involving the employment appointment termination of employment termsand conditions of employment evaluation of the performance promotion or disciplining ofany specific prospective public officer or employee or current public officer or employeeemployed or appointed by the public body unless all individual employees or appointees whoserights could be adversely affected request in writing that such matter or matters be discussed ata public meetingrdquo Subject to the balancing of the publicrsquos interest and the employeersquos privacyrights under South Jersey Publishing Co v New Jersey Expressway Authority 124 NJ 478 theemployee(s) and nature of the discussion described as specifically as possible withoutundermining the need for confidentiality are _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(9) Any deliberation of a public body occurring after a public hearing that may result in theimposition of a specific civil penalty upon the responding party or the suspension or loss of alicense or permit belonging to the responding party as a result of an act of omission forwhich the responding party bears responsibilityrdquo The nature of the matter described asspecifically as possible without undermining the need for confidentiality is______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
WHEREAS the length of the Executive Session is estimated to be ________ minutes after which the publicmeeting of the Board shall (circle one) reconvene and immediately adjourn or reconvene and proceed withbusiness
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Runnemede Board of Education will go into ExecutiveSession for only the above stated reasons
Exhibit Page 2Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 41 of 77
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board hereby declares that its discussion of the aforementionedsubject(s) will be made public at a time when the publicrsquos interest in disclosure is greater than any privacy orgovernmental interest being protected from disclosure For each of the above items the estimated date bywhich such disclosure can be made andor the occurrence that needs to take place before disclosure can bemade are listed below (attach separate sheet if necessary)
Subject of Discussion Estimated Date Necessary Occurrence
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Clerk at the present public meeting shall read aloud enough ofthis resolution so that members of the public in attendance can understand as precisely as possible thenature of the matters that will privately discussed
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Clerk on the next business day following this meeting shallfurnish a copy of this resolution to any member of the public who requests one at the fees allowed byNJSA 471A-1 et seq
_________________________________Board President
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS ATRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTIONAPPROVED BY THE RUNNEMEDE BOARD OF EDUCATION AT ITSPUBLIC MEETING HELD ON ______________________20___
_______________________________________Board Secretary
Exhibit Page 3Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 42 of 77
Exhibit Page 4Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 43 of 77
Exhibit Page 5Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 44 of 77
Exhibit Page 6Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 45 of 77
Exhibit Page 7Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 46 of 77
Exhibit Page 8Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 47 of 77
Exhibit Page 9Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 48 of 77
Subject Records RequestFrom John Paff ltpaffpoboxcomgtDate Sat 07 May 2011 161444 -0400To vcarmodyrunnemedeschoolsorgCC psternasgllawcom
Ms Carmody
Please accept this e-mail as my request for government records inaccordance with the Open Public Records Act (OPRA) and the commonlaw right of access Please respond and send all responsivedocuments to me via e-mail at paffpoboxcom If e-mail is notpossible please fax responses and responsive records to me at908-325-0129 Also I would appreciate it if you wouldacknowledge your receipt of this e-mail
Background
In response to a records request I recently received redactedexecutive session minutes for the following dates July 28 2010(first session) August 26 2010 February 2 2011 February 232011 (two sessions) and March 2 2011 Although Mr Stern providedme with a sheet entitled Documents Exempt From OPRA request thatpurports to explain these redactions I am still unclear as to whythe matter was redacted and whether it was lawfully redacted
First I dont understand references such as NJSA 471A-11(12)(c) The version of OPRA that I have (plus every other oneIve seen) does not have internal numbers within NJSA471A-11 Am I correct that NJSA 471A-11(12)(c) isintended to refer to the exemption for records in connection withcollective negotiations including documents and statements ofstrategy or negotiating position and that NJSA 471A-11(7)is intended to refer to any record within the attorney-clientprivilege This paragraph shall not be construed as exempting fromaccess attorney or consultant bills or invoices except that suchbills or invoices may be redacted to remove any informationprotected by the attorney-client privilege Please advise
Second even if I correctly corresponded the claimed exemptions tothe OPRA statute I have no way of knowing whether the mattersredacted are actually exempt from access When a custodiansuppresses any portion of any requested record NJSA471A-5(g) requires him or her to state the ldquospecific basisrdquo foreach suppressed element Beyond stating the ldquospecific basisrdquo foreach suppressed element he or she is required to ldquoproduce
Records Request
1 of 2 622011 810 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 49 of 77
specific reliable evidence sufficient to meet a statutorilyrecognized basis for confidentialityrdquo Courier News v HunterdonCounty Prosecutorrsquos Office 358 NJ Super 373 382-83 (App Div2003) Further he or she must explain each suppression in amanner that ldquowill enable other parties to assess the applicabilityof the privilege or protectionrdquo Paff v New Jersey Department ofLabor Board of Review 379 NJ Super 346 354-55 (2005)(quoting R 410-2(e))
Records requested
Runnemede Board of Education minutes for the following dates July28 2010 (728 pm session only) August 26 2010 February 22011 February 23 2011 (both sessions) and March 2 2011 Iwould like these minutes redacted as narrowly as possible if atall For each redaction I request a written explanation thatmeets the requirements of the case law cited above
cc Phil Stern
Records Request
2 of 2 622011 810 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 50 of 77
Subject Re Fwd Runnemede Board of Education Open PublicMeetings ActFrom John Paff ltpaffpoboxcomgtDate Mon 09 May 2011 134726 -0400To Nancy Ward ltnwardrunnemedeschoolsorggt
Thank you
On 592011 116 PM Nancy Ward wrote
Mr Paff
The Board has named me Custodian of Records Please direct allfuturecommunication to me The May 10 2011 meeting is theRe-organization ofthe Runnemede Board of Education The agenda is set and is verycomprehensive I intend to defer the letter and any discussionregardingits content to the next regular meeting the date of which willbe setat the re-organization tomorrow night In keeping with thedistrictsmeeting pattern that will be May 25 2011
Nancy BWard EdD
Superintendent of Schools
-----Original Message-----From John PaffSent 572011 42300 PMTo nwardrunnemedeschoolsorgCc vcarmodyrunnemedeschoolsorg psternasgllawcomSubject Fwd Runnemede Board of Education Open Public MeetingsAct
Here is another e-mail in case my original one should have beendirected to Ms Ward and not Ms Carmody
JP
-------- Original Message --------Subject Runnemede Board of Education Open Public Meetings ActDate Sat 07 May 2011 152319 -0400From John Paff
Re Fwd Runnemede Board of Education Open Public Meetings Act
1 of 2 622011 811 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 51 of 77
Reply-To paffpoboxcomTo vcarmodyrunnemedeschoolsorg psternasgllawcom
Ms Carmody and Mr Stern
Attached is a letter that I would like the Board to consider atits May10 2011 meeting Would you please a) acknowledge receipt of theletterand b) distribute it to all the Board members
Note that the last paragraph of the letter indicates that I willfilesuit against the Board if the issues in the letter arentaddressedSo if the Boards agenda for the May 10th meeting is so tightthat myletter cannot be accommodated please advise me of such andprovide ameeting date where my letter will be addressed so that I knowthat I amnot being ignored
Thank you
John Paff ChairmanNew Jersey Libertarian PartysOpen Government Advocacy Project
Re Fwd Runnemede Board of Education Open Public Meetings Act
2 of 2 622011 811 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 52 of 77
Subject OPRA RequestFrom Philip Stern ltpsternasgllawcomgtDate Fri 20 May 2011 161015 -0500To paffpoboxcom ltpaffpoboxcomgtCC Nancy Ward ltnwardrunnemedeschoolsorggt
Mr Paff please find attached to this email a response to your request forbusiness records Please note that in providing you with the attachedrecords the Runnemede Borough Board of Education waives no rightsregarding the attorney-client privilege Do not hesitate to call me if youhave any questions Phil Stern
Philip E SternAdams Stern Gutierrez amp Lattiboudere LLCThe Legal Center1037 Raymond Blvd Suite 710Newark New Jersey 07102(973) 735-2742 (office telephone)(201) 914-2415 (cellular telephone)(973) 735-2743 (office telefax)
May 20 Paff responsepdf
Content-DescriptionMay 20 Paffresponsepdf
Content-Type applicationpdf
Content-Encoding base64
OPRA Request
1 of 1 622011 815 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 53 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 54 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 55 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 56 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 57 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 58 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 59 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 60 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 61 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 62 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 63 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 64 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 65 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 66 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 67 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 68 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 69 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 70 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 71 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 72 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 73 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 74 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 75 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 76 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 77 of 77
- Civil Complaint
- Exhibits
-
3
ldquoDiscussion of slip and fall negligence suit Jones v Runnemede Board Docket No CAM-L-
012345-11rdquo This way the public has a very good sense of what the Boardrsquos private discussion is
about while the ability of the Board to develop its lawsuit strategy is not undermined
Using the same example suppose that Jonesrsquo attorney sent the Boardrsquos attorney an offer
to fully settle the lawsuit upon the Boardrsquos payment of $20000 While the Board would
obviously need to discuss how to respond to the offer in private lest Jones or his attorney
would be in the audience witnessing the discussion there is no reason why the public cannot be
informed in the NJSA 104-13 resolution that the Board will meet in private to discuss ldquoa
settlement offer received from the Plaintiff in the slip and fall negligence suit known as Jones v
Runnemede Board Docket No CAM-L-012345-11 in which the Plaintiff offers to settle the suit
in exchange for the Board paying him $20000rdquo While it may initially seem that this would
provide ldquotoo muchrdquo information to the public this concern disappears once it is realized that
the sole purpose of the exception2 that allows litigation matters to be discussed in private is to
keep the adverse party to the litigation in the dark regarding the Boardrsquos position3 Since in this
example the adverse party (ie Jones) already knows that he offered to settle the lawsuit for
$20000 there is no legitimate reason why the public should not also know of the tendered
settlement offer
As another example suppose that a personnel matter such as whether or not a Mrs
Smith a public works employee should be disciplined because of repeatedly arriving late to
work is to be discussed in closed session In such a case the amount of detail set forth in the
NJSA 104-13 resolution should correspond to the amount of detail that the Board and its
attorney predict will be publicly disclosed in the closed meetingrsquos minutes when those minutes
are made public
The standard that the Board is to use when determining how much information about a
personnel matter is to be disclosed in the closed sessionrsquos minutes is set forth in South Jersey
Publishing Company Inc v New Jersey Expressway Authority 124 NJ 478 (1991) That
standard is that a) the public needs information if it is properly fulfill its role of evaluating the
wisdom of governmental action or a decision not to act b) that New Jerseys strong public
policy requires that a public bodyrsquos actions and decisions to not act be disclosed in the bodys
closed meeting minutes along with sufficient facts and information to permit the public to
understand and appraise the reasonableness of the bodys determination and c) to the extent a
cognizable privacy interest may be compromised by the required disclosure the extent of
disclosure may be modified through redactions of the minutes provided the public interest in
disclosure is not subverted
2 NJSA104-12(b)(7) is to prevent adverse parties to litigation and contracts from learning the details of the
public bodyrsquos negotiation tactics and litigation strategy3 See the discussion in Paff v Washington Township Docket No MER-L-2205-07 and Nevin v Asbury Park City
Board 2005 WL 2847974 (App Div November 1 2005) which are on-line at
httpogtfarchiveorgOGTFWashingtonpdf (Nevin begins at page 44 of the PDF file at the link)
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 37 of 77
4
Thus regardless of whether the Board disciplines Ms Smith or chooses to not impose
discipline due to her lateness the outcome should be recorded in the closed meeting minutes
The question of whether that entry in the minutes should be redacted before the minutes are
made public requires a balancing of Ms Smithrsquos interest in keeping the disciplinary matter
private against the publicrsquos interest in effectively monitoring the Board If the Board with
counselrsquos advice determines after balancing these interests that the outcome will be published
unredacted in the closed sessionrsquos minutes (ie if the minutes will disclose to the public eg that
ldquoMs Smith was suspended for three days on account of her habitual latenessrdquo) then the exact
nature of the matter (ie that ldquothe Board will discuss disciplining Ms Smith for excessive
latenessrdquo) should be set forth in the closed meetingrsquos NJSA 104-13 resolution Inversely if the
Board determines that Ms Smithrsquos privacy interest exceeds the publicrsquos right to know then less
information (eg ldquothe Board will discuss disciplining an employee for excessive latenessrdquo)
should be set forth in the closed meetingrsquos NJSA 104-13 resolution
In other words if the officer or employee being discussed doesnt have a privacy interest
sufficient to withstand a citizens request for the executive session minutes why should not the
public know the topic of the executive session prior to it occurring
Irsquove attached as Exhibit pages 1 -3 is a model resolution that I would like the Board to
use in the future
Issue 2 Executive Session minutes
Attached as Exhibit Page 4 as an example are the Boardrsquos July 28 2010 executive session
minutes It is troubling that a meeting that lasted over an hour is being summed up in a single
sentence ldquoMr Phil Stern addressed the Board of Education about personnel issuesrdquo These
minutes are not ldquoreasonably comprehensiblerdquo as required by NJSA 104-14
The purpose of closed meeting minutes is not merely to inform the public of whatoccurred during the private session but also to create a record for the Board membersthemselves A Board member who is newly elected in 2012 should be able by referringsolely to the minutes to figure out what issues the Board addressed during any previouslyheld closed meeting This hypothetical Board member after reading the July 28 2010closed minutes could not possibly figure out which employees or officials Mr Stern wastalking about
Better practice would be to record closed minutes that are much morecomprehensive but to redact that material that must be shielded from public view Forexample the minutes could have said
Mr Stern addressed the Board of Education about the habitualtardiness of 2nd grade teacher Mary Doe and her propensity to eatlibrary paste and scream hysterically during fire drills Herecommended that she be sent for psychiatric evaluation
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 38 of 77
5
Of course if a member of the public requested these hypothetical minutes the Boardmay need to redact them in order to protect privacy interests The point however is thatregardless of whether unredacted closed meeting minutes are ever released to the publicthey should contain sufficient details so that the Board members themselves can monthsor years later know what was discussed
Attached as Exhibit pages 5 ndash 9 is an order recently entered in Schmidt et al v City of
Gloucester City et al Docket No CAM-L-1287-11 As you can see paraA(3) supports my position
that the Boardrsquos minutes are not ldquoreasonably comprehensiblerdquo as required by law
Conclusion
Since some public bodies do not take my requests for Meetings Act compliance seriously
I regret having to inform the Board that I will sue for declaratory and injunctive relief in
accordance with NJSA 104-16 unless I receive assurances from the Boardmdashwithin a few days
after its May 10 2011 meetingmdashthat it will work in good faith to improve the amount of
information in both its closed session resolutions and minutes If the Boardrsquos agenda is already
set for the May 10 2011 meeting please at least acknowledge this letter and let me know the
date of the meeting at which it will be considered
Thank you very much for your attention to this matter I look forward to hearing from
you
Sincerely
John Paff
cc Philip E Stern Esq w enc (via e-mail to psternasgllawcom )
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 39 of 77
RUNNEMEDE BOARD OF EDUCATIONRESOLUTION NO ___________
AUTHORIZING EXECUTIVE SESSION
WHEREAS while the Sen Byron M Baer Open Public Meetings Act (NJSA 104-6 et seq) requires allmeetings of the Runnemede Board of Education to be held in public NJSA 104-12(b) sets forth nine (9)types of matters that may lawfully be discussed in ldquoExecutive Sessionrdquo ie without the public beingpermitted to attend and
WHEREAS the Runnemede Board of Education has determined that _____ (insert number) issues arepermitted by NJSA 104-12(b) to be discussed without the public in attendance shall be discussed duringan Executive Session to be held on _________________________ 20____ at _______ PM and
WHEREAS the nine (9) exceptions to public meetings set forth in NJSA 104-12(b) are listed below andnext to each exception is a box within which the number of issues to be privately discussed that fall withinthat exception shall be written and after each exception is a space where additional information that willdisclose as much information about the discussion as possible without undermining the purpose of theexception shall be written
ldquo(1) Any matter which by express provision of Federal law State statute or rule of courtshall be rendered confidential or excluded from public discussionrdquo The legal citation to theprovision(s) at issue is__________________________ and the nature of the matter described asspecifically as possible without undermining the need for confidentiality is _______________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(2) Any matter in which the release of information would impair a right to receive fundsfrom the federal governmentrdquo The nature of the matter described as specifically as possiblewithout undermining the need for confidentiality is _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(3) Any material the disclosure of which constitutes an unwarranted invasion of individualprivacy such as any records data reports recommendations or other personal material ofany educational training social service medical health custodial child protectionrehabilitation legal defense welfare housing relocation insurance and similar program orinstitution operated by a public body pertaining to any specific individual admitted to orserved by such institution or program including but not limited to information relative tothe individuals personal and family circumstances and any material pertaining toadmission discharge treatment progress or condition of any individual unless theindividual concerned (or in the case of a minor or incompetent his guardian) shall requestin writing that the same be disclosed publiclyrdquo The nature of the matter described asspecifically as possible without undermining the need for confidentiality is______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(4) Any collective bargaining agreement or the terms and conditions of which are proposedfor inclusion in any collective bargaining agreement including the negotiation of terms andconditions with employees or representatives of employees of the public bodyrdquo The collectivebargaining contract(s) discussed are between the Board and ____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Exhibit Page 1Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 40 of 77
ldquo(5) Any matter involving the purchase lease or acquisition of real property with publicfunds the setting of bank rates or investment of public funds where it could adversely affectthe public interest if discussion of such matters were disclosedrdquo The nature of the matterdescribed as specifically as possible without undermining the need for confidentiality is____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(6) Any tactics and techniques utilized in protecting the safety and property of the publicprovided that their disclosure could impair such protection Any investigations of violationsor possible violations of the lawrdquo The nature of the matter described as specifically as possiblewithout undermining the need for confidentiality is ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(7) Any pending or anticipated litigation or contract negotiation in which the public body isor may become a party Any matters falling within the attorney-client privilege to the extentthat confidentiality is required in order for the attorney to exercise his ethicalduties as a lawyerrdquo The parties to and docket numbers of each item of litigation andor theparties to each contract discussed are __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ andnature of the discussion described as specifically as possible without undermining the need forconfidentiality is ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(8) Any matter involving the employment appointment termination of employment termsand conditions of employment evaluation of the performance promotion or disciplining ofany specific prospective public officer or employee or current public officer or employeeemployed or appointed by the public body unless all individual employees or appointees whoserights could be adversely affected request in writing that such matter or matters be discussed ata public meetingrdquo Subject to the balancing of the publicrsquos interest and the employeersquos privacyrights under South Jersey Publishing Co v New Jersey Expressway Authority 124 NJ 478 theemployee(s) and nature of the discussion described as specifically as possible withoutundermining the need for confidentiality are _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(9) Any deliberation of a public body occurring after a public hearing that may result in theimposition of a specific civil penalty upon the responding party or the suspension or loss of alicense or permit belonging to the responding party as a result of an act of omission forwhich the responding party bears responsibilityrdquo The nature of the matter described asspecifically as possible without undermining the need for confidentiality is______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
WHEREAS the length of the Executive Session is estimated to be ________ minutes after which the publicmeeting of the Board shall (circle one) reconvene and immediately adjourn or reconvene and proceed withbusiness
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Runnemede Board of Education will go into ExecutiveSession for only the above stated reasons
Exhibit Page 2Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 41 of 77
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board hereby declares that its discussion of the aforementionedsubject(s) will be made public at a time when the publicrsquos interest in disclosure is greater than any privacy orgovernmental interest being protected from disclosure For each of the above items the estimated date bywhich such disclosure can be made andor the occurrence that needs to take place before disclosure can bemade are listed below (attach separate sheet if necessary)
Subject of Discussion Estimated Date Necessary Occurrence
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Clerk at the present public meeting shall read aloud enough ofthis resolution so that members of the public in attendance can understand as precisely as possible thenature of the matters that will privately discussed
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Clerk on the next business day following this meeting shallfurnish a copy of this resolution to any member of the public who requests one at the fees allowed byNJSA 471A-1 et seq
_________________________________Board President
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS ATRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTIONAPPROVED BY THE RUNNEMEDE BOARD OF EDUCATION AT ITSPUBLIC MEETING HELD ON ______________________20___
_______________________________________Board Secretary
Exhibit Page 3Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 42 of 77
Exhibit Page 4Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 43 of 77
Exhibit Page 5Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 44 of 77
Exhibit Page 6Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 45 of 77
Exhibit Page 7Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 46 of 77
Exhibit Page 8Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 47 of 77
Exhibit Page 9Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 48 of 77
Subject Records RequestFrom John Paff ltpaffpoboxcomgtDate Sat 07 May 2011 161444 -0400To vcarmodyrunnemedeschoolsorgCC psternasgllawcom
Ms Carmody
Please accept this e-mail as my request for government records inaccordance with the Open Public Records Act (OPRA) and the commonlaw right of access Please respond and send all responsivedocuments to me via e-mail at paffpoboxcom If e-mail is notpossible please fax responses and responsive records to me at908-325-0129 Also I would appreciate it if you wouldacknowledge your receipt of this e-mail
Background
In response to a records request I recently received redactedexecutive session minutes for the following dates July 28 2010(first session) August 26 2010 February 2 2011 February 232011 (two sessions) and March 2 2011 Although Mr Stern providedme with a sheet entitled Documents Exempt From OPRA request thatpurports to explain these redactions I am still unclear as to whythe matter was redacted and whether it was lawfully redacted
First I dont understand references such as NJSA 471A-11(12)(c) The version of OPRA that I have (plus every other oneIve seen) does not have internal numbers within NJSA471A-11 Am I correct that NJSA 471A-11(12)(c) isintended to refer to the exemption for records in connection withcollective negotiations including documents and statements ofstrategy or negotiating position and that NJSA 471A-11(7)is intended to refer to any record within the attorney-clientprivilege This paragraph shall not be construed as exempting fromaccess attorney or consultant bills or invoices except that suchbills or invoices may be redacted to remove any informationprotected by the attorney-client privilege Please advise
Second even if I correctly corresponded the claimed exemptions tothe OPRA statute I have no way of knowing whether the mattersredacted are actually exempt from access When a custodiansuppresses any portion of any requested record NJSA471A-5(g) requires him or her to state the ldquospecific basisrdquo foreach suppressed element Beyond stating the ldquospecific basisrdquo foreach suppressed element he or she is required to ldquoproduce
Records Request
1 of 2 622011 810 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 49 of 77
specific reliable evidence sufficient to meet a statutorilyrecognized basis for confidentialityrdquo Courier News v HunterdonCounty Prosecutorrsquos Office 358 NJ Super 373 382-83 (App Div2003) Further he or she must explain each suppression in amanner that ldquowill enable other parties to assess the applicabilityof the privilege or protectionrdquo Paff v New Jersey Department ofLabor Board of Review 379 NJ Super 346 354-55 (2005)(quoting R 410-2(e))
Records requested
Runnemede Board of Education minutes for the following dates July28 2010 (728 pm session only) August 26 2010 February 22011 February 23 2011 (both sessions) and March 2 2011 Iwould like these minutes redacted as narrowly as possible if atall For each redaction I request a written explanation thatmeets the requirements of the case law cited above
cc Phil Stern
Records Request
2 of 2 622011 810 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 50 of 77
Subject Re Fwd Runnemede Board of Education Open PublicMeetings ActFrom John Paff ltpaffpoboxcomgtDate Mon 09 May 2011 134726 -0400To Nancy Ward ltnwardrunnemedeschoolsorggt
Thank you
On 592011 116 PM Nancy Ward wrote
Mr Paff
The Board has named me Custodian of Records Please direct allfuturecommunication to me The May 10 2011 meeting is theRe-organization ofthe Runnemede Board of Education The agenda is set and is verycomprehensive I intend to defer the letter and any discussionregardingits content to the next regular meeting the date of which willbe setat the re-organization tomorrow night In keeping with thedistrictsmeeting pattern that will be May 25 2011
Nancy BWard EdD
Superintendent of Schools
-----Original Message-----From John PaffSent 572011 42300 PMTo nwardrunnemedeschoolsorgCc vcarmodyrunnemedeschoolsorg psternasgllawcomSubject Fwd Runnemede Board of Education Open Public MeetingsAct
Here is another e-mail in case my original one should have beendirected to Ms Ward and not Ms Carmody
JP
-------- Original Message --------Subject Runnemede Board of Education Open Public Meetings ActDate Sat 07 May 2011 152319 -0400From John Paff
Re Fwd Runnemede Board of Education Open Public Meetings Act
1 of 2 622011 811 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 51 of 77
Reply-To paffpoboxcomTo vcarmodyrunnemedeschoolsorg psternasgllawcom
Ms Carmody and Mr Stern
Attached is a letter that I would like the Board to consider atits May10 2011 meeting Would you please a) acknowledge receipt of theletterand b) distribute it to all the Board members
Note that the last paragraph of the letter indicates that I willfilesuit against the Board if the issues in the letter arentaddressedSo if the Boards agenda for the May 10th meeting is so tightthat myletter cannot be accommodated please advise me of such andprovide ameeting date where my letter will be addressed so that I knowthat I amnot being ignored
Thank you
John Paff ChairmanNew Jersey Libertarian PartysOpen Government Advocacy Project
Re Fwd Runnemede Board of Education Open Public Meetings Act
2 of 2 622011 811 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 52 of 77
Subject OPRA RequestFrom Philip Stern ltpsternasgllawcomgtDate Fri 20 May 2011 161015 -0500To paffpoboxcom ltpaffpoboxcomgtCC Nancy Ward ltnwardrunnemedeschoolsorggt
Mr Paff please find attached to this email a response to your request forbusiness records Please note that in providing you with the attachedrecords the Runnemede Borough Board of Education waives no rightsregarding the attorney-client privilege Do not hesitate to call me if youhave any questions Phil Stern
Philip E SternAdams Stern Gutierrez amp Lattiboudere LLCThe Legal Center1037 Raymond Blvd Suite 710Newark New Jersey 07102(973) 735-2742 (office telephone)(201) 914-2415 (cellular telephone)(973) 735-2743 (office telefax)
May 20 Paff responsepdf
Content-DescriptionMay 20 Paffresponsepdf
Content-Type applicationpdf
Content-Encoding base64
OPRA Request
1 of 1 622011 815 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 53 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 54 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 55 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 56 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 57 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 58 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 59 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 60 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 61 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 62 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 63 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 64 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 65 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 66 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 67 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 68 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 69 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 70 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 71 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 72 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 73 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 74 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 75 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 76 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 77 of 77
- Civil Complaint
- Exhibits
-
4
Thus regardless of whether the Board disciplines Ms Smith or chooses to not impose
discipline due to her lateness the outcome should be recorded in the closed meeting minutes
The question of whether that entry in the minutes should be redacted before the minutes are
made public requires a balancing of Ms Smithrsquos interest in keeping the disciplinary matter
private against the publicrsquos interest in effectively monitoring the Board If the Board with
counselrsquos advice determines after balancing these interests that the outcome will be published
unredacted in the closed sessionrsquos minutes (ie if the minutes will disclose to the public eg that
ldquoMs Smith was suspended for three days on account of her habitual latenessrdquo) then the exact
nature of the matter (ie that ldquothe Board will discuss disciplining Ms Smith for excessive
latenessrdquo) should be set forth in the closed meetingrsquos NJSA 104-13 resolution Inversely if the
Board determines that Ms Smithrsquos privacy interest exceeds the publicrsquos right to know then less
information (eg ldquothe Board will discuss disciplining an employee for excessive latenessrdquo)
should be set forth in the closed meetingrsquos NJSA 104-13 resolution
In other words if the officer or employee being discussed doesnt have a privacy interest
sufficient to withstand a citizens request for the executive session minutes why should not the
public know the topic of the executive session prior to it occurring
Irsquove attached as Exhibit pages 1 -3 is a model resolution that I would like the Board to
use in the future
Issue 2 Executive Session minutes
Attached as Exhibit Page 4 as an example are the Boardrsquos July 28 2010 executive session
minutes It is troubling that a meeting that lasted over an hour is being summed up in a single
sentence ldquoMr Phil Stern addressed the Board of Education about personnel issuesrdquo These
minutes are not ldquoreasonably comprehensiblerdquo as required by NJSA 104-14
The purpose of closed meeting minutes is not merely to inform the public of whatoccurred during the private session but also to create a record for the Board membersthemselves A Board member who is newly elected in 2012 should be able by referringsolely to the minutes to figure out what issues the Board addressed during any previouslyheld closed meeting This hypothetical Board member after reading the July 28 2010closed minutes could not possibly figure out which employees or officials Mr Stern wastalking about
Better practice would be to record closed minutes that are much morecomprehensive but to redact that material that must be shielded from public view Forexample the minutes could have said
Mr Stern addressed the Board of Education about the habitualtardiness of 2nd grade teacher Mary Doe and her propensity to eatlibrary paste and scream hysterically during fire drills Herecommended that she be sent for psychiatric evaluation
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 38 of 77
5
Of course if a member of the public requested these hypothetical minutes the Boardmay need to redact them in order to protect privacy interests The point however is thatregardless of whether unredacted closed meeting minutes are ever released to the publicthey should contain sufficient details so that the Board members themselves can monthsor years later know what was discussed
Attached as Exhibit pages 5 ndash 9 is an order recently entered in Schmidt et al v City of
Gloucester City et al Docket No CAM-L-1287-11 As you can see paraA(3) supports my position
that the Boardrsquos minutes are not ldquoreasonably comprehensiblerdquo as required by law
Conclusion
Since some public bodies do not take my requests for Meetings Act compliance seriously
I regret having to inform the Board that I will sue for declaratory and injunctive relief in
accordance with NJSA 104-16 unless I receive assurances from the Boardmdashwithin a few days
after its May 10 2011 meetingmdashthat it will work in good faith to improve the amount of
information in both its closed session resolutions and minutes If the Boardrsquos agenda is already
set for the May 10 2011 meeting please at least acknowledge this letter and let me know the
date of the meeting at which it will be considered
Thank you very much for your attention to this matter I look forward to hearing from
you
Sincerely
John Paff
cc Philip E Stern Esq w enc (via e-mail to psternasgllawcom )
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 39 of 77
RUNNEMEDE BOARD OF EDUCATIONRESOLUTION NO ___________
AUTHORIZING EXECUTIVE SESSION
WHEREAS while the Sen Byron M Baer Open Public Meetings Act (NJSA 104-6 et seq) requires allmeetings of the Runnemede Board of Education to be held in public NJSA 104-12(b) sets forth nine (9)types of matters that may lawfully be discussed in ldquoExecutive Sessionrdquo ie without the public beingpermitted to attend and
WHEREAS the Runnemede Board of Education has determined that _____ (insert number) issues arepermitted by NJSA 104-12(b) to be discussed without the public in attendance shall be discussed duringan Executive Session to be held on _________________________ 20____ at _______ PM and
WHEREAS the nine (9) exceptions to public meetings set forth in NJSA 104-12(b) are listed below andnext to each exception is a box within which the number of issues to be privately discussed that fall withinthat exception shall be written and after each exception is a space where additional information that willdisclose as much information about the discussion as possible without undermining the purpose of theexception shall be written
ldquo(1) Any matter which by express provision of Federal law State statute or rule of courtshall be rendered confidential or excluded from public discussionrdquo The legal citation to theprovision(s) at issue is__________________________ and the nature of the matter described asspecifically as possible without undermining the need for confidentiality is _______________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(2) Any matter in which the release of information would impair a right to receive fundsfrom the federal governmentrdquo The nature of the matter described as specifically as possiblewithout undermining the need for confidentiality is _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(3) Any material the disclosure of which constitutes an unwarranted invasion of individualprivacy such as any records data reports recommendations or other personal material ofany educational training social service medical health custodial child protectionrehabilitation legal defense welfare housing relocation insurance and similar program orinstitution operated by a public body pertaining to any specific individual admitted to orserved by such institution or program including but not limited to information relative tothe individuals personal and family circumstances and any material pertaining toadmission discharge treatment progress or condition of any individual unless theindividual concerned (or in the case of a minor or incompetent his guardian) shall requestin writing that the same be disclosed publiclyrdquo The nature of the matter described asspecifically as possible without undermining the need for confidentiality is______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(4) Any collective bargaining agreement or the terms and conditions of which are proposedfor inclusion in any collective bargaining agreement including the negotiation of terms andconditions with employees or representatives of employees of the public bodyrdquo The collectivebargaining contract(s) discussed are between the Board and ____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Exhibit Page 1Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 40 of 77
ldquo(5) Any matter involving the purchase lease or acquisition of real property with publicfunds the setting of bank rates or investment of public funds where it could adversely affectthe public interest if discussion of such matters were disclosedrdquo The nature of the matterdescribed as specifically as possible without undermining the need for confidentiality is____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(6) Any tactics and techniques utilized in protecting the safety and property of the publicprovided that their disclosure could impair such protection Any investigations of violationsor possible violations of the lawrdquo The nature of the matter described as specifically as possiblewithout undermining the need for confidentiality is ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(7) Any pending or anticipated litigation or contract negotiation in which the public body isor may become a party Any matters falling within the attorney-client privilege to the extentthat confidentiality is required in order for the attorney to exercise his ethicalduties as a lawyerrdquo The parties to and docket numbers of each item of litigation andor theparties to each contract discussed are __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ andnature of the discussion described as specifically as possible without undermining the need forconfidentiality is ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(8) Any matter involving the employment appointment termination of employment termsand conditions of employment evaluation of the performance promotion or disciplining ofany specific prospective public officer or employee or current public officer or employeeemployed or appointed by the public body unless all individual employees or appointees whoserights could be adversely affected request in writing that such matter or matters be discussed ata public meetingrdquo Subject to the balancing of the publicrsquos interest and the employeersquos privacyrights under South Jersey Publishing Co v New Jersey Expressway Authority 124 NJ 478 theemployee(s) and nature of the discussion described as specifically as possible withoutundermining the need for confidentiality are _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(9) Any deliberation of a public body occurring after a public hearing that may result in theimposition of a specific civil penalty upon the responding party or the suspension or loss of alicense or permit belonging to the responding party as a result of an act of omission forwhich the responding party bears responsibilityrdquo The nature of the matter described asspecifically as possible without undermining the need for confidentiality is______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
WHEREAS the length of the Executive Session is estimated to be ________ minutes after which the publicmeeting of the Board shall (circle one) reconvene and immediately adjourn or reconvene and proceed withbusiness
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Runnemede Board of Education will go into ExecutiveSession for only the above stated reasons
Exhibit Page 2Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 41 of 77
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board hereby declares that its discussion of the aforementionedsubject(s) will be made public at a time when the publicrsquos interest in disclosure is greater than any privacy orgovernmental interest being protected from disclosure For each of the above items the estimated date bywhich such disclosure can be made andor the occurrence that needs to take place before disclosure can bemade are listed below (attach separate sheet if necessary)
Subject of Discussion Estimated Date Necessary Occurrence
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Clerk at the present public meeting shall read aloud enough ofthis resolution so that members of the public in attendance can understand as precisely as possible thenature of the matters that will privately discussed
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Clerk on the next business day following this meeting shallfurnish a copy of this resolution to any member of the public who requests one at the fees allowed byNJSA 471A-1 et seq
_________________________________Board President
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS ATRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTIONAPPROVED BY THE RUNNEMEDE BOARD OF EDUCATION AT ITSPUBLIC MEETING HELD ON ______________________20___
_______________________________________Board Secretary
Exhibit Page 3Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 42 of 77
Exhibit Page 4Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 43 of 77
Exhibit Page 5Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 44 of 77
Exhibit Page 6Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 45 of 77
Exhibit Page 7Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 46 of 77
Exhibit Page 8Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 47 of 77
Exhibit Page 9Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 48 of 77
Subject Records RequestFrom John Paff ltpaffpoboxcomgtDate Sat 07 May 2011 161444 -0400To vcarmodyrunnemedeschoolsorgCC psternasgllawcom
Ms Carmody
Please accept this e-mail as my request for government records inaccordance with the Open Public Records Act (OPRA) and the commonlaw right of access Please respond and send all responsivedocuments to me via e-mail at paffpoboxcom If e-mail is notpossible please fax responses and responsive records to me at908-325-0129 Also I would appreciate it if you wouldacknowledge your receipt of this e-mail
Background
In response to a records request I recently received redactedexecutive session minutes for the following dates July 28 2010(first session) August 26 2010 February 2 2011 February 232011 (two sessions) and March 2 2011 Although Mr Stern providedme with a sheet entitled Documents Exempt From OPRA request thatpurports to explain these redactions I am still unclear as to whythe matter was redacted and whether it was lawfully redacted
First I dont understand references such as NJSA 471A-11(12)(c) The version of OPRA that I have (plus every other oneIve seen) does not have internal numbers within NJSA471A-11 Am I correct that NJSA 471A-11(12)(c) isintended to refer to the exemption for records in connection withcollective negotiations including documents and statements ofstrategy or negotiating position and that NJSA 471A-11(7)is intended to refer to any record within the attorney-clientprivilege This paragraph shall not be construed as exempting fromaccess attorney or consultant bills or invoices except that suchbills or invoices may be redacted to remove any informationprotected by the attorney-client privilege Please advise
Second even if I correctly corresponded the claimed exemptions tothe OPRA statute I have no way of knowing whether the mattersredacted are actually exempt from access When a custodiansuppresses any portion of any requested record NJSA471A-5(g) requires him or her to state the ldquospecific basisrdquo foreach suppressed element Beyond stating the ldquospecific basisrdquo foreach suppressed element he or she is required to ldquoproduce
Records Request
1 of 2 622011 810 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 49 of 77
specific reliable evidence sufficient to meet a statutorilyrecognized basis for confidentialityrdquo Courier News v HunterdonCounty Prosecutorrsquos Office 358 NJ Super 373 382-83 (App Div2003) Further he or she must explain each suppression in amanner that ldquowill enable other parties to assess the applicabilityof the privilege or protectionrdquo Paff v New Jersey Department ofLabor Board of Review 379 NJ Super 346 354-55 (2005)(quoting R 410-2(e))
Records requested
Runnemede Board of Education minutes for the following dates July28 2010 (728 pm session only) August 26 2010 February 22011 February 23 2011 (both sessions) and March 2 2011 Iwould like these minutes redacted as narrowly as possible if atall For each redaction I request a written explanation thatmeets the requirements of the case law cited above
cc Phil Stern
Records Request
2 of 2 622011 810 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 50 of 77
Subject Re Fwd Runnemede Board of Education Open PublicMeetings ActFrom John Paff ltpaffpoboxcomgtDate Mon 09 May 2011 134726 -0400To Nancy Ward ltnwardrunnemedeschoolsorggt
Thank you
On 592011 116 PM Nancy Ward wrote
Mr Paff
The Board has named me Custodian of Records Please direct allfuturecommunication to me The May 10 2011 meeting is theRe-organization ofthe Runnemede Board of Education The agenda is set and is verycomprehensive I intend to defer the letter and any discussionregardingits content to the next regular meeting the date of which willbe setat the re-organization tomorrow night In keeping with thedistrictsmeeting pattern that will be May 25 2011
Nancy BWard EdD
Superintendent of Schools
-----Original Message-----From John PaffSent 572011 42300 PMTo nwardrunnemedeschoolsorgCc vcarmodyrunnemedeschoolsorg psternasgllawcomSubject Fwd Runnemede Board of Education Open Public MeetingsAct
Here is another e-mail in case my original one should have beendirected to Ms Ward and not Ms Carmody
JP
-------- Original Message --------Subject Runnemede Board of Education Open Public Meetings ActDate Sat 07 May 2011 152319 -0400From John Paff
Re Fwd Runnemede Board of Education Open Public Meetings Act
1 of 2 622011 811 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 51 of 77
Reply-To paffpoboxcomTo vcarmodyrunnemedeschoolsorg psternasgllawcom
Ms Carmody and Mr Stern
Attached is a letter that I would like the Board to consider atits May10 2011 meeting Would you please a) acknowledge receipt of theletterand b) distribute it to all the Board members
Note that the last paragraph of the letter indicates that I willfilesuit against the Board if the issues in the letter arentaddressedSo if the Boards agenda for the May 10th meeting is so tightthat myletter cannot be accommodated please advise me of such andprovide ameeting date where my letter will be addressed so that I knowthat I amnot being ignored
Thank you
John Paff ChairmanNew Jersey Libertarian PartysOpen Government Advocacy Project
Re Fwd Runnemede Board of Education Open Public Meetings Act
2 of 2 622011 811 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 52 of 77
Subject OPRA RequestFrom Philip Stern ltpsternasgllawcomgtDate Fri 20 May 2011 161015 -0500To paffpoboxcom ltpaffpoboxcomgtCC Nancy Ward ltnwardrunnemedeschoolsorggt
Mr Paff please find attached to this email a response to your request forbusiness records Please note that in providing you with the attachedrecords the Runnemede Borough Board of Education waives no rightsregarding the attorney-client privilege Do not hesitate to call me if youhave any questions Phil Stern
Philip E SternAdams Stern Gutierrez amp Lattiboudere LLCThe Legal Center1037 Raymond Blvd Suite 710Newark New Jersey 07102(973) 735-2742 (office telephone)(201) 914-2415 (cellular telephone)(973) 735-2743 (office telefax)
May 20 Paff responsepdf
Content-DescriptionMay 20 Paffresponsepdf
Content-Type applicationpdf
Content-Encoding base64
OPRA Request
1 of 1 622011 815 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 53 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 54 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 55 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 56 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 57 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 58 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 59 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 60 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 61 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 62 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 63 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 64 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 65 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 66 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 67 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 68 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 69 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 70 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 71 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 72 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 73 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 74 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 75 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 76 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 77 of 77
- Civil Complaint
- Exhibits
-
5
Of course if a member of the public requested these hypothetical minutes the Boardmay need to redact them in order to protect privacy interests The point however is thatregardless of whether unredacted closed meeting minutes are ever released to the publicthey should contain sufficient details so that the Board members themselves can monthsor years later know what was discussed
Attached as Exhibit pages 5 ndash 9 is an order recently entered in Schmidt et al v City of
Gloucester City et al Docket No CAM-L-1287-11 As you can see paraA(3) supports my position
that the Boardrsquos minutes are not ldquoreasonably comprehensiblerdquo as required by law
Conclusion
Since some public bodies do not take my requests for Meetings Act compliance seriously
I regret having to inform the Board that I will sue for declaratory and injunctive relief in
accordance with NJSA 104-16 unless I receive assurances from the Boardmdashwithin a few days
after its May 10 2011 meetingmdashthat it will work in good faith to improve the amount of
information in both its closed session resolutions and minutes If the Boardrsquos agenda is already
set for the May 10 2011 meeting please at least acknowledge this letter and let me know the
date of the meeting at which it will be considered
Thank you very much for your attention to this matter I look forward to hearing from
you
Sincerely
John Paff
cc Philip E Stern Esq w enc (via e-mail to psternasgllawcom )
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 39 of 77
RUNNEMEDE BOARD OF EDUCATIONRESOLUTION NO ___________
AUTHORIZING EXECUTIVE SESSION
WHEREAS while the Sen Byron M Baer Open Public Meetings Act (NJSA 104-6 et seq) requires allmeetings of the Runnemede Board of Education to be held in public NJSA 104-12(b) sets forth nine (9)types of matters that may lawfully be discussed in ldquoExecutive Sessionrdquo ie without the public beingpermitted to attend and
WHEREAS the Runnemede Board of Education has determined that _____ (insert number) issues arepermitted by NJSA 104-12(b) to be discussed without the public in attendance shall be discussed duringan Executive Session to be held on _________________________ 20____ at _______ PM and
WHEREAS the nine (9) exceptions to public meetings set forth in NJSA 104-12(b) are listed below andnext to each exception is a box within which the number of issues to be privately discussed that fall withinthat exception shall be written and after each exception is a space where additional information that willdisclose as much information about the discussion as possible without undermining the purpose of theexception shall be written
ldquo(1) Any matter which by express provision of Federal law State statute or rule of courtshall be rendered confidential or excluded from public discussionrdquo The legal citation to theprovision(s) at issue is__________________________ and the nature of the matter described asspecifically as possible without undermining the need for confidentiality is _______________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(2) Any matter in which the release of information would impair a right to receive fundsfrom the federal governmentrdquo The nature of the matter described as specifically as possiblewithout undermining the need for confidentiality is _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(3) Any material the disclosure of which constitutes an unwarranted invasion of individualprivacy such as any records data reports recommendations or other personal material ofany educational training social service medical health custodial child protectionrehabilitation legal defense welfare housing relocation insurance and similar program orinstitution operated by a public body pertaining to any specific individual admitted to orserved by such institution or program including but not limited to information relative tothe individuals personal and family circumstances and any material pertaining toadmission discharge treatment progress or condition of any individual unless theindividual concerned (or in the case of a minor or incompetent his guardian) shall requestin writing that the same be disclosed publiclyrdquo The nature of the matter described asspecifically as possible without undermining the need for confidentiality is______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(4) Any collective bargaining agreement or the terms and conditions of which are proposedfor inclusion in any collective bargaining agreement including the negotiation of terms andconditions with employees or representatives of employees of the public bodyrdquo The collectivebargaining contract(s) discussed are between the Board and ____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Exhibit Page 1Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 40 of 77
ldquo(5) Any matter involving the purchase lease or acquisition of real property with publicfunds the setting of bank rates or investment of public funds where it could adversely affectthe public interest if discussion of such matters were disclosedrdquo The nature of the matterdescribed as specifically as possible without undermining the need for confidentiality is____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(6) Any tactics and techniques utilized in protecting the safety and property of the publicprovided that their disclosure could impair such protection Any investigations of violationsor possible violations of the lawrdquo The nature of the matter described as specifically as possiblewithout undermining the need for confidentiality is ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(7) Any pending or anticipated litigation or contract negotiation in which the public body isor may become a party Any matters falling within the attorney-client privilege to the extentthat confidentiality is required in order for the attorney to exercise his ethicalduties as a lawyerrdquo The parties to and docket numbers of each item of litigation andor theparties to each contract discussed are __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ andnature of the discussion described as specifically as possible without undermining the need forconfidentiality is ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(8) Any matter involving the employment appointment termination of employment termsand conditions of employment evaluation of the performance promotion or disciplining ofany specific prospective public officer or employee or current public officer or employeeemployed or appointed by the public body unless all individual employees or appointees whoserights could be adversely affected request in writing that such matter or matters be discussed ata public meetingrdquo Subject to the balancing of the publicrsquos interest and the employeersquos privacyrights under South Jersey Publishing Co v New Jersey Expressway Authority 124 NJ 478 theemployee(s) and nature of the discussion described as specifically as possible withoutundermining the need for confidentiality are _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(9) Any deliberation of a public body occurring after a public hearing that may result in theimposition of a specific civil penalty upon the responding party or the suspension or loss of alicense or permit belonging to the responding party as a result of an act of omission forwhich the responding party bears responsibilityrdquo The nature of the matter described asspecifically as possible without undermining the need for confidentiality is______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
WHEREAS the length of the Executive Session is estimated to be ________ minutes after which the publicmeeting of the Board shall (circle one) reconvene and immediately adjourn or reconvene and proceed withbusiness
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Runnemede Board of Education will go into ExecutiveSession for only the above stated reasons
Exhibit Page 2Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 41 of 77
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board hereby declares that its discussion of the aforementionedsubject(s) will be made public at a time when the publicrsquos interest in disclosure is greater than any privacy orgovernmental interest being protected from disclosure For each of the above items the estimated date bywhich such disclosure can be made andor the occurrence that needs to take place before disclosure can bemade are listed below (attach separate sheet if necessary)
Subject of Discussion Estimated Date Necessary Occurrence
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Clerk at the present public meeting shall read aloud enough ofthis resolution so that members of the public in attendance can understand as precisely as possible thenature of the matters that will privately discussed
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Clerk on the next business day following this meeting shallfurnish a copy of this resolution to any member of the public who requests one at the fees allowed byNJSA 471A-1 et seq
_________________________________Board President
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS ATRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTIONAPPROVED BY THE RUNNEMEDE BOARD OF EDUCATION AT ITSPUBLIC MEETING HELD ON ______________________20___
_______________________________________Board Secretary
Exhibit Page 3Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 42 of 77
Exhibit Page 4Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 43 of 77
Exhibit Page 5Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 44 of 77
Exhibit Page 6Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 45 of 77
Exhibit Page 7Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 46 of 77
Exhibit Page 8Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 47 of 77
Exhibit Page 9Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 48 of 77
Subject Records RequestFrom John Paff ltpaffpoboxcomgtDate Sat 07 May 2011 161444 -0400To vcarmodyrunnemedeschoolsorgCC psternasgllawcom
Ms Carmody
Please accept this e-mail as my request for government records inaccordance with the Open Public Records Act (OPRA) and the commonlaw right of access Please respond and send all responsivedocuments to me via e-mail at paffpoboxcom If e-mail is notpossible please fax responses and responsive records to me at908-325-0129 Also I would appreciate it if you wouldacknowledge your receipt of this e-mail
Background
In response to a records request I recently received redactedexecutive session minutes for the following dates July 28 2010(first session) August 26 2010 February 2 2011 February 232011 (two sessions) and March 2 2011 Although Mr Stern providedme with a sheet entitled Documents Exempt From OPRA request thatpurports to explain these redactions I am still unclear as to whythe matter was redacted and whether it was lawfully redacted
First I dont understand references such as NJSA 471A-11(12)(c) The version of OPRA that I have (plus every other oneIve seen) does not have internal numbers within NJSA471A-11 Am I correct that NJSA 471A-11(12)(c) isintended to refer to the exemption for records in connection withcollective negotiations including documents and statements ofstrategy or negotiating position and that NJSA 471A-11(7)is intended to refer to any record within the attorney-clientprivilege This paragraph shall not be construed as exempting fromaccess attorney or consultant bills or invoices except that suchbills or invoices may be redacted to remove any informationprotected by the attorney-client privilege Please advise
Second even if I correctly corresponded the claimed exemptions tothe OPRA statute I have no way of knowing whether the mattersredacted are actually exempt from access When a custodiansuppresses any portion of any requested record NJSA471A-5(g) requires him or her to state the ldquospecific basisrdquo foreach suppressed element Beyond stating the ldquospecific basisrdquo foreach suppressed element he or she is required to ldquoproduce
Records Request
1 of 2 622011 810 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 49 of 77
specific reliable evidence sufficient to meet a statutorilyrecognized basis for confidentialityrdquo Courier News v HunterdonCounty Prosecutorrsquos Office 358 NJ Super 373 382-83 (App Div2003) Further he or she must explain each suppression in amanner that ldquowill enable other parties to assess the applicabilityof the privilege or protectionrdquo Paff v New Jersey Department ofLabor Board of Review 379 NJ Super 346 354-55 (2005)(quoting R 410-2(e))
Records requested
Runnemede Board of Education minutes for the following dates July28 2010 (728 pm session only) August 26 2010 February 22011 February 23 2011 (both sessions) and March 2 2011 Iwould like these minutes redacted as narrowly as possible if atall For each redaction I request a written explanation thatmeets the requirements of the case law cited above
cc Phil Stern
Records Request
2 of 2 622011 810 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 50 of 77
Subject Re Fwd Runnemede Board of Education Open PublicMeetings ActFrom John Paff ltpaffpoboxcomgtDate Mon 09 May 2011 134726 -0400To Nancy Ward ltnwardrunnemedeschoolsorggt
Thank you
On 592011 116 PM Nancy Ward wrote
Mr Paff
The Board has named me Custodian of Records Please direct allfuturecommunication to me The May 10 2011 meeting is theRe-organization ofthe Runnemede Board of Education The agenda is set and is verycomprehensive I intend to defer the letter and any discussionregardingits content to the next regular meeting the date of which willbe setat the re-organization tomorrow night In keeping with thedistrictsmeeting pattern that will be May 25 2011
Nancy BWard EdD
Superintendent of Schools
-----Original Message-----From John PaffSent 572011 42300 PMTo nwardrunnemedeschoolsorgCc vcarmodyrunnemedeschoolsorg psternasgllawcomSubject Fwd Runnemede Board of Education Open Public MeetingsAct
Here is another e-mail in case my original one should have beendirected to Ms Ward and not Ms Carmody
JP
-------- Original Message --------Subject Runnemede Board of Education Open Public Meetings ActDate Sat 07 May 2011 152319 -0400From John Paff
Re Fwd Runnemede Board of Education Open Public Meetings Act
1 of 2 622011 811 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 51 of 77
Reply-To paffpoboxcomTo vcarmodyrunnemedeschoolsorg psternasgllawcom
Ms Carmody and Mr Stern
Attached is a letter that I would like the Board to consider atits May10 2011 meeting Would you please a) acknowledge receipt of theletterand b) distribute it to all the Board members
Note that the last paragraph of the letter indicates that I willfilesuit against the Board if the issues in the letter arentaddressedSo if the Boards agenda for the May 10th meeting is so tightthat myletter cannot be accommodated please advise me of such andprovide ameeting date where my letter will be addressed so that I knowthat I amnot being ignored
Thank you
John Paff ChairmanNew Jersey Libertarian PartysOpen Government Advocacy Project
Re Fwd Runnemede Board of Education Open Public Meetings Act
2 of 2 622011 811 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 52 of 77
Subject OPRA RequestFrom Philip Stern ltpsternasgllawcomgtDate Fri 20 May 2011 161015 -0500To paffpoboxcom ltpaffpoboxcomgtCC Nancy Ward ltnwardrunnemedeschoolsorggt
Mr Paff please find attached to this email a response to your request forbusiness records Please note that in providing you with the attachedrecords the Runnemede Borough Board of Education waives no rightsregarding the attorney-client privilege Do not hesitate to call me if youhave any questions Phil Stern
Philip E SternAdams Stern Gutierrez amp Lattiboudere LLCThe Legal Center1037 Raymond Blvd Suite 710Newark New Jersey 07102(973) 735-2742 (office telephone)(201) 914-2415 (cellular telephone)(973) 735-2743 (office telefax)
May 20 Paff responsepdf
Content-DescriptionMay 20 Paffresponsepdf
Content-Type applicationpdf
Content-Encoding base64
OPRA Request
1 of 1 622011 815 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 53 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 54 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 55 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 56 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 57 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 58 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 59 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 60 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 61 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 62 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 63 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 64 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 65 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 66 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 67 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 68 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 69 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 70 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 71 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 72 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 73 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 74 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 75 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 76 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 77 of 77
- Civil Complaint
- Exhibits
-
RUNNEMEDE BOARD OF EDUCATIONRESOLUTION NO ___________
AUTHORIZING EXECUTIVE SESSION
WHEREAS while the Sen Byron M Baer Open Public Meetings Act (NJSA 104-6 et seq) requires allmeetings of the Runnemede Board of Education to be held in public NJSA 104-12(b) sets forth nine (9)types of matters that may lawfully be discussed in ldquoExecutive Sessionrdquo ie without the public beingpermitted to attend and
WHEREAS the Runnemede Board of Education has determined that _____ (insert number) issues arepermitted by NJSA 104-12(b) to be discussed without the public in attendance shall be discussed duringan Executive Session to be held on _________________________ 20____ at _______ PM and
WHEREAS the nine (9) exceptions to public meetings set forth in NJSA 104-12(b) are listed below andnext to each exception is a box within which the number of issues to be privately discussed that fall withinthat exception shall be written and after each exception is a space where additional information that willdisclose as much information about the discussion as possible without undermining the purpose of theexception shall be written
ldquo(1) Any matter which by express provision of Federal law State statute or rule of courtshall be rendered confidential or excluded from public discussionrdquo The legal citation to theprovision(s) at issue is__________________________ and the nature of the matter described asspecifically as possible without undermining the need for confidentiality is _______________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(2) Any matter in which the release of information would impair a right to receive fundsfrom the federal governmentrdquo The nature of the matter described as specifically as possiblewithout undermining the need for confidentiality is _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(3) Any material the disclosure of which constitutes an unwarranted invasion of individualprivacy such as any records data reports recommendations or other personal material ofany educational training social service medical health custodial child protectionrehabilitation legal defense welfare housing relocation insurance and similar program orinstitution operated by a public body pertaining to any specific individual admitted to orserved by such institution or program including but not limited to information relative tothe individuals personal and family circumstances and any material pertaining toadmission discharge treatment progress or condition of any individual unless theindividual concerned (or in the case of a minor or incompetent his guardian) shall requestin writing that the same be disclosed publiclyrdquo The nature of the matter described asspecifically as possible without undermining the need for confidentiality is______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(4) Any collective bargaining agreement or the terms and conditions of which are proposedfor inclusion in any collective bargaining agreement including the negotiation of terms andconditions with employees or representatives of employees of the public bodyrdquo The collectivebargaining contract(s) discussed are between the Board and ____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Exhibit Page 1Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 40 of 77
ldquo(5) Any matter involving the purchase lease or acquisition of real property with publicfunds the setting of bank rates or investment of public funds where it could adversely affectthe public interest if discussion of such matters were disclosedrdquo The nature of the matterdescribed as specifically as possible without undermining the need for confidentiality is____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(6) Any tactics and techniques utilized in protecting the safety and property of the publicprovided that their disclosure could impair such protection Any investigations of violationsor possible violations of the lawrdquo The nature of the matter described as specifically as possiblewithout undermining the need for confidentiality is ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(7) Any pending or anticipated litigation or contract negotiation in which the public body isor may become a party Any matters falling within the attorney-client privilege to the extentthat confidentiality is required in order for the attorney to exercise his ethicalduties as a lawyerrdquo The parties to and docket numbers of each item of litigation andor theparties to each contract discussed are __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ andnature of the discussion described as specifically as possible without undermining the need forconfidentiality is ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(8) Any matter involving the employment appointment termination of employment termsand conditions of employment evaluation of the performance promotion or disciplining ofany specific prospective public officer or employee or current public officer or employeeemployed or appointed by the public body unless all individual employees or appointees whoserights could be adversely affected request in writing that such matter or matters be discussed ata public meetingrdquo Subject to the balancing of the publicrsquos interest and the employeersquos privacyrights under South Jersey Publishing Co v New Jersey Expressway Authority 124 NJ 478 theemployee(s) and nature of the discussion described as specifically as possible withoutundermining the need for confidentiality are _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(9) Any deliberation of a public body occurring after a public hearing that may result in theimposition of a specific civil penalty upon the responding party or the suspension or loss of alicense or permit belonging to the responding party as a result of an act of omission forwhich the responding party bears responsibilityrdquo The nature of the matter described asspecifically as possible without undermining the need for confidentiality is______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
WHEREAS the length of the Executive Session is estimated to be ________ minutes after which the publicmeeting of the Board shall (circle one) reconvene and immediately adjourn or reconvene and proceed withbusiness
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Runnemede Board of Education will go into ExecutiveSession for only the above stated reasons
Exhibit Page 2Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 41 of 77
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board hereby declares that its discussion of the aforementionedsubject(s) will be made public at a time when the publicrsquos interest in disclosure is greater than any privacy orgovernmental interest being protected from disclosure For each of the above items the estimated date bywhich such disclosure can be made andor the occurrence that needs to take place before disclosure can bemade are listed below (attach separate sheet if necessary)
Subject of Discussion Estimated Date Necessary Occurrence
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Clerk at the present public meeting shall read aloud enough ofthis resolution so that members of the public in attendance can understand as precisely as possible thenature of the matters that will privately discussed
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Clerk on the next business day following this meeting shallfurnish a copy of this resolution to any member of the public who requests one at the fees allowed byNJSA 471A-1 et seq
_________________________________Board President
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS ATRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTIONAPPROVED BY THE RUNNEMEDE BOARD OF EDUCATION AT ITSPUBLIC MEETING HELD ON ______________________20___
_______________________________________Board Secretary
Exhibit Page 3Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 42 of 77
Exhibit Page 4Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 43 of 77
Exhibit Page 5Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 44 of 77
Exhibit Page 6Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 45 of 77
Exhibit Page 7Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 46 of 77
Exhibit Page 8Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 47 of 77
Exhibit Page 9Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 48 of 77
Subject Records RequestFrom John Paff ltpaffpoboxcomgtDate Sat 07 May 2011 161444 -0400To vcarmodyrunnemedeschoolsorgCC psternasgllawcom
Ms Carmody
Please accept this e-mail as my request for government records inaccordance with the Open Public Records Act (OPRA) and the commonlaw right of access Please respond and send all responsivedocuments to me via e-mail at paffpoboxcom If e-mail is notpossible please fax responses and responsive records to me at908-325-0129 Also I would appreciate it if you wouldacknowledge your receipt of this e-mail
Background
In response to a records request I recently received redactedexecutive session minutes for the following dates July 28 2010(first session) August 26 2010 February 2 2011 February 232011 (two sessions) and March 2 2011 Although Mr Stern providedme with a sheet entitled Documents Exempt From OPRA request thatpurports to explain these redactions I am still unclear as to whythe matter was redacted and whether it was lawfully redacted
First I dont understand references such as NJSA 471A-11(12)(c) The version of OPRA that I have (plus every other oneIve seen) does not have internal numbers within NJSA471A-11 Am I correct that NJSA 471A-11(12)(c) isintended to refer to the exemption for records in connection withcollective negotiations including documents and statements ofstrategy or negotiating position and that NJSA 471A-11(7)is intended to refer to any record within the attorney-clientprivilege This paragraph shall not be construed as exempting fromaccess attorney or consultant bills or invoices except that suchbills or invoices may be redacted to remove any informationprotected by the attorney-client privilege Please advise
Second even if I correctly corresponded the claimed exemptions tothe OPRA statute I have no way of knowing whether the mattersredacted are actually exempt from access When a custodiansuppresses any portion of any requested record NJSA471A-5(g) requires him or her to state the ldquospecific basisrdquo foreach suppressed element Beyond stating the ldquospecific basisrdquo foreach suppressed element he or she is required to ldquoproduce
Records Request
1 of 2 622011 810 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 49 of 77
specific reliable evidence sufficient to meet a statutorilyrecognized basis for confidentialityrdquo Courier News v HunterdonCounty Prosecutorrsquos Office 358 NJ Super 373 382-83 (App Div2003) Further he or she must explain each suppression in amanner that ldquowill enable other parties to assess the applicabilityof the privilege or protectionrdquo Paff v New Jersey Department ofLabor Board of Review 379 NJ Super 346 354-55 (2005)(quoting R 410-2(e))
Records requested
Runnemede Board of Education minutes for the following dates July28 2010 (728 pm session only) August 26 2010 February 22011 February 23 2011 (both sessions) and March 2 2011 Iwould like these minutes redacted as narrowly as possible if atall For each redaction I request a written explanation thatmeets the requirements of the case law cited above
cc Phil Stern
Records Request
2 of 2 622011 810 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 50 of 77
Subject Re Fwd Runnemede Board of Education Open PublicMeetings ActFrom John Paff ltpaffpoboxcomgtDate Mon 09 May 2011 134726 -0400To Nancy Ward ltnwardrunnemedeschoolsorggt
Thank you
On 592011 116 PM Nancy Ward wrote
Mr Paff
The Board has named me Custodian of Records Please direct allfuturecommunication to me The May 10 2011 meeting is theRe-organization ofthe Runnemede Board of Education The agenda is set and is verycomprehensive I intend to defer the letter and any discussionregardingits content to the next regular meeting the date of which willbe setat the re-organization tomorrow night In keeping with thedistrictsmeeting pattern that will be May 25 2011
Nancy BWard EdD
Superintendent of Schools
-----Original Message-----From John PaffSent 572011 42300 PMTo nwardrunnemedeschoolsorgCc vcarmodyrunnemedeschoolsorg psternasgllawcomSubject Fwd Runnemede Board of Education Open Public MeetingsAct
Here is another e-mail in case my original one should have beendirected to Ms Ward and not Ms Carmody
JP
-------- Original Message --------Subject Runnemede Board of Education Open Public Meetings ActDate Sat 07 May 2011 152319 -0400From John Paff
Re Fwd Runnemede Board of Education Open Public Meetings Act
1 of 2 622011 811 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 51 of 77
Reply-To paffpoboxcomTo vcarmodyrunnemedeschoolsorg psternasgllawcom
Ms Carmody and Mr Stern
Attached is a letter that I would like the Board to consider atits May10 2011 meeting Would you please a) acknowledge receipt of theletterand b) distribute it to all the Board members
Note that the last paragraph of the letter indicates that I willfilesuit against the Board if the issues in the letter arentaddressedSo if the Boards agenda for the May 10th meeting is so tightthat myletter cannot be accommodated please advise me of such andprovide ameeting date where my letter will be addressed so that I knowthat I amnot being ignored
Thank you
John Paff ChairmanNew Jersey Libertarian PartysOpen Government Advocacy Project
Re Fwd Runnemede Board of Education Open Public Meetings Act
2 of 2 622011 811 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 52 of 77
Subject OPRA RequestFrom Philip Stern ltpsternasgllawcomgtDate Fri 20 May 2011 161015 -0500To paffpoboxcom ltpaffpoboxcomgtCC Nancy Ward ltnwardrunnemedeschoolsorggt
Mr Paff please find attached to this email a response to your request forbusiness records Please note that in providing you with the attachedrecords the Runnemede Borough Board of Education waives no rightsregarding the attorney-client privilege Do not hesitate to call me if youhave any questions Phil Stern
Philip E SternAdams Stern Gutierrez amp Lattiboudere LLCThe Legal Center1037 Raymond Blvd Suite 710Newark New Jersey 07102(973) 735-2742 (office telephone)(201) 914-2415 (cellular telephone)(973) 735-2743 (office telefax)
May 20 Paff responsepdf
Content-DescriptionMay 20 Paffresponsepdf
Content-Type applicationpdf
Content-Encoding base64
OPRA Request
1 of 1 622011 815 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 53 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 54 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 55 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 56 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 57 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 58 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 59 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 60 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 61 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 62 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 63 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 64 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 65 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 66 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 67 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 68 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 69 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 70 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 71 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 72 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 73 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 74 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 75 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 76 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 77 of 77
- Civil Complaint
- Exhibits
-
ldquo(5) Any matter involving the purchase lease or acquisition of real property with publicfunds the setting of bank rates or investment of public funds where it could adversely affectthe public interest if discussion of such matters were disclosedrdquo The nature of the matterdescribed as specifically as possible without undermining the need for confidentiality is____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(6) Any tactics and techniques utilized in protecting the safety and property of the publicprovided that their disclosure could impair such protection Any investigations of violationsor possible violations of the lawrdquo The nature of the matter described as specifically as possiblewithout undermining the need for confidentiality is ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(7) Any pending or anticipated litigation or contract negotiation in which the public body isor may become a party Any matters falling within the attorney-client privilege to the extentthat confidentiality is required in order for the attorney to exercise his ethicalduties as a lawyerrdquo The parties to and docket numbers of each item of litigation andor theparties to each contract discussed are __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ andnature of the discussion described as specifically as possible without undermining the need forconfidentiality is ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(8) Any matter involving the employment appointment termination of employment termsand conditions of employment evaluation of the performance promotion or disciplining ofany specific prospective public officer or employee or current public officer or employeeemployed or appointed by the public body unless all individual employees or appointees whoserights could be adversely affected request in writing that such matter or matters be discussed ata public meetingrdquo Subject to the balancing of the publicrsquos interest and the employeersquos privacyrights under South Jersey Publishing Co v New Jersey Expressway Authority 124 NJ 478 theemployee(s) and nature of the discussion described as specifically as possible withoutundermining the need for confidentiality are _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ldquo(9) Any deliberation of a public body occurring after a public hearing that may result in theimposition of a specific civil penalty upon the responding party or the suspension or loss of alicense or permit belonging to the responding party as a result of an act of omission forwhich the responding party bears responsibilityrdquo The nature of the matter described asspecifically as possible without undermining the need for confidentiality is______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
WHEREAS the length of the Executive Session is estimated to be ________ minutes after which the publicmeeting of the Board shall (circle one) reconvene and immediately adjourn or reconvene and proceed withbusiness
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Runnemede Board of Education will go into ExecutiveSession for only the above stated reasons
Exhibit Page 2Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 41 of 77
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board hereby declares that its discussion of the aforementionedsubject(s) will be made public at a time when the publicrsquos interest in disclosure is greater than any privacy orgovernmental interest being protected from disclosure For each of the above items the estimated date bywhich such disclosure can be made andor the occurrence that needs to take place before disclosure can bemade are listed below (attach separate sheet if necessary)
Subject of Discussion Estimated Date Necessary Occurrence
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Clerk at the present public meeting shall read aloud enough ofthis resolution so that members of the public in attendance can understand as precisely as possible thenature of the matters that will privately discussed
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Clerk on the next business day following this meeting shallfurnish a copy of this resolution to any member of the public who requests one at the fees allowed byNJSA 471A-1 et seq
_________________________________Board President
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS ATRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTIONAPPROVED BY THE RUNNEMEDE BOARD OF EDUCATION AT ITSPUBLIC MEETING HELD ON ______________________20___
_______________________________________Board Secretary
Exhibit Page 3Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 42 of 77
Exhibit Page 4Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 43 of 77
Exhibit Page 5Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 44 of 77
Exhibit Page 6Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 45 of 77
Exhibit Page 7Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 46 of 77
Exhibit Page 8Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 47 of 77
Exhibit Page 9Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 48 of 77
Subject Records RequestFrom John Paff ltpaffpoboxcomgtDate Sat 07 May 2011 161444 -0400To vcarmodyrunnemedeschoolsorgCC psternasgllawcom
Ms Carmody
Please accept this e-mail as my request for government records inaccordance with the Open Public Records Act (OPRA) and the commonlaw right of access Please respond and send all responsivedocuments to me via e-mail at paffpoboxcom If e-mail is notpossible please fax responses and responsive records to me at908-325-0129 Also I would appreciate it if you wouldacknowledge your receipt of this e-mail
Background
In response to a records request I recently received redactedexecutive session minutes for the following dates July 28 2010(first session) August 26 2010 February 2 2011 February 232011 (two sessions) and March 2 2011 Although Mr Stern providedme with a sheet entitled Documents Exempt From OPRA request thatpurports to explain these redactions I am still unclear as to whythe matter was redacted and whether it was lawfully redacted
First I dont understand references such as NJSA 471A-11(12)(c) The version of OPRA that I have (plus every other oneIve seen) does not have internal numbers within NJSA471A-11 Am I correct that NJSA 471A-11(12)(c) isintended to refer to the exemption for records in connection withcollective negotiations including documents and statements ofstrategy or negotiating position and that NJSA 471A-11(7)is intended to refer to any record within the attorney-clientprivilege This paragraph shall not be construed as exempting fromaccess attorney or consultant bills or invoices except that suchbills or invoices may be redacted to remove any informationprotected by the attorney-client privilege Please advise
Second even if I correctly corresponded the claimed exemptions tothe OPRA statute I have no way of knowing whether the mattersredacted are actually exempt from access When a custodiansuppresses any portion of any requested record NJSA471A-5(g) requires him or her to state the ldquospecific basisrdquo foreach suppressed element Beyond stating the ldquospecific basisrdquo foreach suppressed element he or she is required to ldquoproduce
Records Request
1 of 2 622011 810 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 49 of 77
specific reliable evidence sufficient to meet a statutorilyrecognized basis for confidentialityrdquo Courier News v HunterdonCounty Prosecutorrsquos Office 358 NJ Super 373 382-83 (App Div2003) Further he or she must explain each suppression in amanner that ldquowill enable other parties to assess the applicabilityof the privilege or protectionrdquo Paff v New Jersey Department ofLabor Board of Review 379 NJ Super 346 354-55 (2005)(quoting R 410-2(e))
Records requested
Runnemede Board of Education minutes for the following dates July28 2010 (728 pm session only) August 26 2010 February 22011 February 23 2011 (both sessions) and March 2 2011 Iwould like these minutes redacted as narrowly as possible if atall For each redaction I request a written explanation thatmeets the requirements of the case law cited above
cc Phil Stern
Records Request
2 of 2 622011 810 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 50 of 77
Subject Re Fwd Runnemede Board of Education Open PublicMeetings ActFrom John Paff ltpaffpoboxcomgtDate Mon 09 May 2011 134726 -0400To Nancy Ward ltnwardrunnemedeschoolsorggt
Thank you
On 592011 116 PM Nancy Ward wrote
Mr Paff
The Board has named me Custodian of Records Please direct allfuturecommunication to me The May 10 2011 meeting is theRe-organization ofthe Runnemede Board of Education The agenda is set and is verycomprehensive I intend to defer the letter and any discussionregardingits content to the next regular meeting the date of which willbe setat the re-organization tomorrow night In keeping with thedistrictsmeeting pattern that will be May 25 2011
Nancy BWard EdD
Superintendent of Schools
-----Original Message-----From John PaffSent 572011 42300 PMTo nwardrunnemedeschoolsorgCc vcarmodyrunnemedeschoolsorg psternasgllawcomSubject Fwd Runnemede Board of Education Open Public MeetingsAct
Here is another e-mail in case my original one should have beendirected to Ms Ward and not Ms Carmody
JP
-------- Original Message --------Subject Runnemede Board of Education Open Public Meetings ActDate Sat 07 May 2011 152319 -0400From John Paff
Re Fwd Runnemede Board of Education Open Public Meetings Act
1 of 2 622011 811 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 51 of 77
Reply-To paffpoboxcomTo vcarmodyrunnemedeschoolsorg psternasgllawcom
Ms Carmody and Mr Stern
Attached is a letter that I would like the Board to consider atits May10 2011 meeting Would you please a) acknowledge receipt of theletterand b) distribute it to all the Board members
Note that the last paragraph of the letter indicates that I willfilesuit against the Board if the issues in the letter arentaddressedSo if the Boards agenda for the May 10th meeting is so tightthat myletter cannot be accommodated please advise me of such andprovide ameeting date where my letter will be addressed so that I knowthat I amnot being ignored
Thank you
John Paff ChairmanNew Jersey Libertarian PartysOpen Government Advocacy Project
Re Fwd Runnemede Board of Education Open Public Meetings Act
2 of 2 622011 811 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 52 of 77
Subject OPRA RequestFrom Philip Stern ltpsternasgllawcomgtDate Fri 20 May 2011 161015 -0500To paffpoboxcom ltpaffpoboxcomgtCC Nancy Ward ltnwardrunnemedeschoolsorggt
Mr Paff please find attached to this email a response to your request forbusiness records Please note that in providing you with the attachedrecords the Runnemede Borough Board of Education waives no rightsregarding the attorney-client privilege Do not hesitate to call me if youhave any questions Phil Stern
Philip E SternAdams Stern Gutierrez amp Lattiboudere LLCThe Legal Center1037 Raymond Blvd Suite 710Newark New Jersey 07102(973) 735-2742 (office telephone)(201) 914-2415 (cellular telephone)(973) 735-2743 (office telefax)
May 20 Paff responsepdf
Content-DescriptionMay 20 Paffresponsepdf
Content-Type applicationpdf
Content-Encoding base64
OPRA Request
1 of 1 622011 815 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 53 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 54 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 55 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 56 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 57 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 58 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 59 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 60 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 61 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 62 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 63 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 64 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 65 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 66 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 67 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 68 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 69 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 70 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 71 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 72 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 73 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 74 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 75 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 76 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 77 of 77
- Civil Complaint
- Exhibits
-
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board hereby declares that its discussion of the aforementionedsubject(s) will be made public at a time when the publicrsquos interest in disclosure is greater than any privacy orgovernmental interest being protected from disclosure For each of the above items the estimated date bywhich such disclosure can be made andor the occurrence that needs to take place before disclosure can bemade are listed below (attach separate sheet if necessary)
Subject of Discussion Estimated Date Necessary Occurrence
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Clerk at the present public meeting shall read aloud enough ofthis resolution so that members of the public in attendance can understand as precisely as possible thenature of the matters that will privately discussed
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Clerk on the next business day following this meeting shallfurnish a copy of this resolution to any member of the public who requests one at the fees allowed byNJSA 471A-1 et seq
_________________________________Board President
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS ATRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTIONAPPROVED BY THE RUNNEMEDE BOARD OF EDUCATION AT ITSPUBLIC MEETING HELD ON ______________________20___
_______________________________________Board Secretary
Exhibit Page 3Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 42 of 77
Exhibit Page 4Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 43 of 77
Exhibit Page 5Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 44 of 77
Exhibit Page 6Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 45 of 77
Exhibit Page 7Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 46 of 77
Exhibit Page 8Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 47 of 77
Exhibit Page 9Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 48 of 77
Subject Records RequestFrom John Paff ltpaffpoboxcomgtDate Sat 07 May 2011 161444 -0400To vcarmodyrunnemedeschoolsorgCC psternasgllawcom
Ms Carmody
Please accept this e-mail as my request for government records inaccordance with the Open Public Records Act (OPRA) and the commonlaw right of access Please respond and send all responsivedocuments to me via e-mail at paffpoboxcom If e-mail is notpossible please fax responses and responsive records to me at908-325-0129 Also I would appreciate it if you wouldacknowledge your receipt of this e-mail
Background
In response to a records request I recently received redactedexecutive session minutes for the following dates July 28 2010(first session) August 26 2010 February 2 2011 February 232011 (two sessions) and March 2 2011 Although Mr Stern providedme with a sheet entitled Documents Exempt From OPRA request thatpurports to explain these redactions I am still unclear as to whythe matter was redacted and whether it was lawfully redacted
First I dont understand references such as NJSA 471A-11(12)(c) The version of OPRA that I have (plus every other oneIve seen) does not have internal numbers within NJSA471A-11 Am I correct that NJSA 471A-11(12)(c) isintended to refer to the exemption for records in connection withcollective negotiations including documents and statements ofstrategy or negotiating position and that NJSA 471A-11(7)is intended to refer to any record within the attorney-clientprivilege This paragraph shall not be construed as exempting fromaccess attorney or consultant bills or invoices except that suchbills or invoices may be redacted to remove any informationprotected by the attorney-client privilege Please advise
Second even if I correctly corresponded the claimed exemptions tothe OPRA statute I have no way of knowing whether the mattersredacted are actually exempt from access When a custodiansuppresses any portion of any requested record NJSA471A-5(g) requires him or her to state the ldquospecific basisrdquo foreach suppressed element Beyond stating the ldquospecific basisrdquo foreach suppressed element he or she is required to ldquoproduce
Records Request
1 of 2 622011 810 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 49 of 77
specific reliable evidence sufficient to meet a statutorilyrecognized basis for confidentialityrdquo Courier News v HunterdonCounty Prosecutorrsquos Office 358 NJ Super 373 382-83 (App Div2003) Further he or she must explain each suppression in amanner that ldquowill enable other parties to assess the applicabilityof the privilege or protectionrdquo Paff v New Jersey Department ofLabor Board of Review 379 NJ Super 346 354-55 (2005)(quoting R 410-2(e))
Records requested
Runnemede Board of Education minutes for the following dates July28 2010 (728 pm session only) August 26 2010 February 22011 February 23 2011 (both sessions) and March 2 2011 Iwould like these minutes redacted as narrowly as possible if atall For each redaction I request a written explanation thatmeets the requirements of the case law cited above
cc Phil Stern
Records Request
2 of 2 622011 810 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 50 of 77
Subject Re Fwd Runnemede Board of Education Open PublicMeetings ActFrom John Paff ltpaffpoboxcomgtDate Mon 09 May 2011 134726 -0400To Nancy Ward ltnwardrunnemedeschoolsorggt
Thank you
On 592011 116 PM Nancy Ward wrote
Mr Paff
The Board has named me Custodian of Records Please direct allfuturecommunication to me The May 10 2011 meeting is theRe-organization ofthe Runnemede Board of Education The agenda is set and is verycomprehensive I intend to defer the letter and any discussionregardingits content to the next regular meeting the date of which willbe setat the re-organization tomorrow night In keeping with thedistrictsmeeting pattern that will be May 25 2011
Nancy BWard EdD
Superintendent of Schools
-----Original Message-----From John PaffSent 572011 42300 PMTo nwardrunnemedeschoolsorgCc vcarmodyrunnemedeschoolsorg psternasgllawcomSubject Fwd Runnemede Board of Education Open Public MeetingsAct
Here is another e-mail in case my original one should have beendirected to Ms Ward and not Ms Carmody
JP
-------- Original Message --------Subject Runnemede Board of Education Open Public Meetings ActDate Sat 07 May 2011 152319 -0400From John Paff
Re Fwd Runnemede Board of Education Open Public Meetings Act
1 of 2 622011 811 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 51 of 77
Reply-To paffpoboxcomTo vcarmodyrunnemedeschoolsorg psternasgllawcom
Ms Carmody and Mr Stern
Attached is a letter that I would like the Board to consider atits May10 2011 meeting Would you please a) acknowledge receipt of theletterand b) distribute it to all the Board members
Note that the last paragraph of the letter indicates that I willfilesuit against the Board if the issues in the letter arentaddressedSo if the Boards agenda for the May 10th meeting is so tightthat myletter cannot be accommodated please advise me of such andprovide ameeting date where my letter will be addressed so that I knowthat I amnot being ignored
Thank you
John Paff ChairmanNew Jersey Libertarian PartysOpen Government Advocacy Project
Re Fwd Runnemede Board of Education Open Public Meetings Act
2 of 2 622011 811 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 52 of 77
Subject OPRA RequestFrom Philip Stern ltpsternasgllawcomgtDate Fri 20 May 2011 161015 -0500To paffpoboxcom ltpaffpoboxcomgtCC Nancy Ward ltnwardrunnemedeschoolsorggt
Mr Paff please find attached to this email a response to your request forbusiness records Please note that in providing you with the attachedrecords the Runnemede Borough Board of Education waives no rightsregarding the attorney-client privilege Do not hesitate to call me if youhave any questions Phil Stern
Philip E SternAdams Stern Gutierrez amp Lattiboudere LLCThe Legal Center1037 Raymond Blvd Suite 710Newark New Jersey 07102(973) 735-2742 (office telephone)(201) 914-2415 (cellular telephone)(973) 735-2743 (office telefax)
May 20 Paff responsepdf
Content-DescriptionMay 20 Paffresponsepdf
Content-Type applicationpdf
Content-Encoding base64
OPRA Request
1 of 1 622011 815 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 53 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 54 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 55 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 56 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 57 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 58 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 59 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 60 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 61 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 62 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 63 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 64 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 65 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 66 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 67 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 68 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 69 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 70 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 71 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 72 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 73 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 74 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 75 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 76 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 77 of 77
- Civil Complaint
- Exhibits
-
Exhibit Page 4Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 43 of 77
Exhibit Page 5Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 44 of 77
Exhibit Page 6Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 45 of 77
Exhibit Page 7Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 46 of 77
Exhibit Page 8Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 47 of 77
Exhibit Page 9Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 48 of 77
Subject Records RequestFrom John Paff ltpaffpoboxcomgtDate Sat 07 May 2011 161444 -0400To vcarmodyrunnemedeschoolsorgCC psternasgllawcom
Ms Carmody
Please accept this e-mail as my request for government records inaccordance with the Open Public Records Act (OPRA) and the commonlaw right of access Please respond and send all responsivedocuments to me via e-mail at paffpoboxcom If e-mail is notpossible please fax responses and responsive records to me at908-325-0129 Also I would appreciate it if you wouldacknowledge your receipt of this e-mail
Background
In response to a records request I recently received redactedexecutive session minutes for the following dates July 28 2010(first session) August 26 2010 February 2 2011 February 232011 (two sessions) and March 2 2011 Although Mr Stern providedme with a sheet entitled Documents Exempt From OPRA request thatpurports to explain these redactions I am still unclear as to whythe matter was redacted and whether it was lawfully redacted
First I dont understand references such as NJSA 471A-11(12)(c) The version of OPRA that I have (plus every other oneIve seen) does not have internal numbers within NJSA471A-11 Am I correct that NJSA 471A-11(12)(c) isintended to refer to the exemption for records in connection withcollective negotiations including documents and statements ofstrategy or negotiating position and that NJSA 471A-11(7)is intended to refer to any record within the attorney-clientprivilege This paragraph shall not be construed as exempting fromaccess attorney or consultant bills or invoices except that suchbills or invoices may be redacted to remove any informationprotected by the attorney-client privilege Please advise
Second even if I correctly corresponded the claimed exemptions tothe OPRA statute I have no way of knowing whether the mattersredacted are actually exempt from access When a custodiansuppresses any portion of any requested record NJSA471A-5(g) requires him or her to state the ldquospecific basisrdquo foreach suppressed element Beyond stating the ldquospecific basisrdquo foreach suppressed element he or she is required to ldquoproduce
Records Request
1 of 2 622011 810 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 49 of 77
specific reliable evidence sufficient to meet a statutorilyrecognized basis for confidentialityrdquo Courier News v HunterdonCounty Prosecutorrsquos Office 358 NJ Super 373 382-83 (App Div2003) Further he or she must explain each suppression in amanner that ldquowill enable other parties to assess the applicabilityof the privilege or protectionrdquo Paff v New Jersey Department ofLabor Board of Review 379 NJ Super 346 354-55 (2005)(quoting R 410-2(e))
Records requested
Runnemede Board of Education minutes for the following dates July28 2010 (728 pm session only) August 26 2010 February 22011 February 23 2011 (both sessions) and March 2 2011 Iwould like these minutes redacted as narrowly as possible if atall For each redaction I request a written explanation thatmeets the requirements of the case law cited above
cc Phil Stern
Records Request
2 of 2 622011 810 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 50 of 77
Subject Re Fwd Runnemede Board of Education Open PublicMeetings ActFrom John Paff ltpaffpoboxcomgtDate Mon 09 May 2011 134726 -0400To Nancy Ward ltnwardrunnemedeschoolsorggt
Thank you
On 592011 116 PM Nancy Ward wrote
Mr Paff
The Board has named me Custodian of Records Please direct allfuturecommunication to me The May 10 2011 meeting is theRe-organization ofthe Runnemede Board of Education The agenda is set and is verycomprehensive I intend to defer the letter and any discussionregardingits content to the next regular meeting the date of which willbe setat the re-organization tomorrow night In keeping with thedistrictsmeeting pattern that will be May 25 2011
Nancy BWard EdD
Superintendent of Schools
-----Original Message-----From John PaffSent 572011 42300 PMTo nwardrunnemedeschoolsorgCc vcarmodyrunnemedeschoolsorg psternasgllawcomSubject Fwd Runnemede Board of Education Open Public MeetingsAct
Here is another e-mail in case my original one should have beendirected to Ms Ward and not Ms Carmody
JP
-------- Original Message --------Subject Runnemede Board of Education Open Public Meetings ActDate Sat 07 May 2011 152319 -0400From John Paff
Re Fwd Runnemede Board of Education Open Public Meetings Act
1 of 2 622011 811 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 51 of 77
Reply-To paffpoboxcomTo vcarmodyrunnemedeschoolsorg psternasgllawcom
Ms Carmody and Mr Stern
Attached is a letter that I would like the Board to consider atits May10 2011 meeting Would you please a) acknowledge receipt of theletterand b) distribute it to all the Board members
Note that the last paragraph of the letter indicates that I willfilesuit against the Board if the issues in the letter arentaddressedSo if the Boards agenda for the May 10th meeting is so tightthat myletter cannot be accommodated please advise me of such andprovide ameeting date where my letter will be addressed so that I knowthat I amnot being ignored
Thank you
John Paff ChairmanNew Jersey Libertarian PartysOpen Government Advocacy Project
Re Fwd Runnemede Board of Education Open Public Meetings Act
2 of 2 622011 811 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 52 of 77
Subject OPRA RequestFrom Philip Stern ltpsternasgllawcomgtDate Fri 20 May 2011 161015 -0500To paffpoboxcom ltpaffpoboxcomgtCC Nancy Ward ltnwardrunnemedeschoolsorggt
Mr Paff please find attached to this email a response to your request forbusiness records Please note that in providing you with the attachedrecords the Runnemede Borough Board of Education waives no rightsregarding the attorney-client privilege Do not hesitate to call me if youhave any questions Phil Stern
Philip E SternAdams Stern Gutierrez amp Lattiboudere LLCThe Legal Center1037 Raymond Blvd Suite 710Newark New Jersey 07102(973) 735-2742 (office telephone)(201) 914-2415 (cellular telephone)(973) 735-2743 (office telefax)
May 20 Paff responsepdf
Content-DescriptionMay 20 Paffresponsepdf
Content-Type applicationpdf
Content-Encoding base64
OPRA Request
1 of 1 622011 815 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 53 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 54 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 55 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 56 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 57 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 58 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 59 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 60 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 61 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 62 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 63 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 64 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 65 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 66 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 67 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 68 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 69 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 70 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 71 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 72 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 73 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 74 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 75 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 76 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 77 of 77
- Civil Complaint
- Exhibits
-
Exhibit Page 5Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 44 of 77
Exhibit Page 6Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 45 of 77
Exhibit Page 7Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 46 of 77
Exhibit Page 8Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 47 of 77
Exhibit Page 9Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 48 of 77
Subject Records RequestFrom John Paff ltpaffpoboxcomgtDate Sat 07 May 2011 161444 -0400To vcarmodyrunnemedeschoolsorgCC psternasgllawcom
Ms Carmody
Please accept this e-mail as my request for government records inaccordance with the Open Public Records Act (OPRA) and the commonlaw right of access Please respond and send all responsivedocuments to me via e-mail at paffpoboxcom If e-mail is notpossible please fax responses and responsive records to me at908-325-0129 Also I would appreciate it if you wouldacknowledge your receipt of this e-mail
Background
In response to a records request I recently received redactedexecutive session minutes for the following dates July 28 2010(first session) August 26 2010 February 2 2011 February 232011 (two sessions) and March 2 2011 Although Mr Stern providedme with a sheet entitled Documents Exempt From OPRA request thatpurports to explain these redactions I am still unclear as to whythe matter was redacted and whether it was lawfully redacted
First I dont understand references such as NJSA 471A-11(12)(c) The version of OPRA that I have (plus every other oneIve seen) does not have internal numbers within NJSA471A-11 Am I correct that NJSA 471A-11(12)(c) isintended to refer to the exemption for records in connection withcollective negotiations including documents and statements ofstrategy or negotiating position and that NJSA 471A-11(7)is intended to refer to any record within the attorney-clientprivilege This paragraph shall not be construed as exempting fromaccess attorney or consultant bills or invoices except that suchbills or invoices may be redacted to remove any informationprotected by the attorney-client privilege Please advise
Second even if I correctly corresponded the claimed exemptions tothe OPRA statute I have no way of knowing whether the mattersredacted are actually exempt from access When a custodiansuppresses any portion of any requested record NJSA471A-5(g) requires him or her to state the ldquospecific basisrdquo foreach suppressed element Beyond stating the ldquospecific basisrdquo foreach suppressed element he or she is required to ldquoproduce
Records Request
1 of 2 622011 810 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 49 of 77
specific reliable evidence sufficient to meet a statutorilyrecognized basis for confidentialityrdquo Courier News v HunterdonCounty Prosecutorrsquos Office 358 NJ Super 373 382-83 (App Div2003) Further he or she must explain each suppression in amanner that ldquowill enable other parties to assess the applicabilityof the privilege or protectionrdquo Paff v New Jersey Department ofLabor Board of Review 379 NJ Super 346 354-55 (2005)(quoting R 410-2(e))
Records requested
Runnemede Board of Education minutes for the following dates July28 2010 (728 pm session only) August 26 2010 February 22011 February 23 2011 (both sessions) and March 2 2011 Iwould like these minutes redacted as narrowly as possible if atall For each redaction I request a written explanation thatmeets the requirements of the case law cited above
cc Phil Stern
Records Request
2 of 2 622011 810 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 50 of 77
Subject Re Fwd Runnemede Board of Education Open PublicMeetings ActFrom John Paff ltpaffpoboxcomgtDate Mon 09 May 2011 134726 -0400To Nancy Ward ltnwardrunnemedeschoolsorggt
Thank you
On 592011 116 PM Nancy Ward wrote
Mr Paff
The Board has named me Custodian of Records Please direct allfuturecommunication to me The May 10 2011 meeting is theRe-organization ofthe Runnemede Board of Education The agenda is set and is verycomprehensive I intend to defer the letter and any discussionregardingits content to the next regular meeting the date of which willbe setat the re-organization tomorrow night In keeping with thedistrictsmeeting pattern that will be May 25 2011
Nancy BWard EdD
Superintendent of Schools
-----Original Message-----From John PaffSent 572011 42300 PMTo nwardrunnemedeschoolsorgCc vcarmodyrunnemedeschoolsorg psternasgllawcomSubject Fwd Runnemede Board of Education Open Public MeetingsAct
Here is another e-mail in case my original one should have beendirected to Ms Ward and not Ms Carmody
JP
-------- Original Message --------Subject Runnemede Board of Education Open Public Meetings ActDate Sat 07 May 2011 152319 -0400From John Paff
Re Fwd Runnemede Board of Education Open Public Meetings Act
1 of 2 622011 811 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 51 of 77
Reply-To paffpoboxcomTo vcarmodyrunnemedeschoolsorg psternasgllawcom
Ms Carmody and Mr Stern
Attached is a letter that I would like the Board to consider atits May10 2011 meeting Would you please a) acknowledge receipt of theletterand b) distribute it to all the Board members
Note that the last paragraph of the letter indicates that I willfilesuit against the Board if the issues in the letter arentaddressedSo if the Boards agenda for the May 10th meeting is so tightthat myletter cannot be accommodated please advise me of such andprovide ameeting date where my letter will be addressed so that I knowthat I amnot being ignored
Thank you
John Paff ChairmanNew Jersey Libertarian PartysOpen Government Advocacy Project
Re Fwd Runnemede Board of Education Open Public Meetings Act
2 of 2 622011 811 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 52 of 77
Subject OPRA RequestFrom Philip Stern ltpsternasgllawcomgtDate Fri 20 May 2011 161015 -0500To paffpoboxcom ltpaffpoboxcomgtCC Nancy Ward ltnwardrunnemedeschoolsorggt
Mr Paff please find attached to this email a response to your request forbusiness records Please note that in providing you with the attachedrecords the Runnemede Borough Board of Education waives no rightsregarding the attorney-client privilege Do not hesitate to call me if youhave any questions Phil Stern
Philip E SternAdams Stern Gutierrez amp Lattiboudere LLCThe Legal Center1037 Raymond Blvd Suite 710Newark New Jersey 07102(973) 735-2742 (office telephone)(201) 914-2415 (cellular telephone)(973) 735-2743 (office telefax)
May 20 Paff responsepdf
Content-DescriptionMay 20 Paffresponsepdf
Content-Type applicationpdf
Content-Encoding base64
OPRA Request
1 of 1 622011 815 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 53 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 54 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 55 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 56 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 57 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 58 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 59 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 60 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 61 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 62 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 63 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 64 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 65 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 66 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 67 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 68 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 69 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 70 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 71 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 72 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 73 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 74 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 75 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 76 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 77 of 77
- Civil Complaint
- Exhibits
-
Exhibit Page 6Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 45 of 77
Exhibit Page 7Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 46 of 77
Exhibit Page 8Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 47 of 77
Exhibit Page 9Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 48 of 77
Subject Records RequestFrom John Paff ltpaffpoboxcomgtDate Sat 07 May 2011 161444 -0400To vcarmodyrunnemedeschoolsorgCC psternasgllawcom
Ms Carmody
Please accept this e-mail as my request for government records inaccordance with the Open Public Records Act (OPRA) and the commonlaw right of access Please respond and send all responsivedocuments to me via e-mail at paffpoboxcom If e-mail is notpossible please fax responses and responsive records to me at908-325-0129 Also I would appreciate it if you wouldacknowledge your receipt of this e-mail
Background
In response to a records request I recently received redactedexecutive session minutes for the following dates July 28 2010(first session) August 26 2010 February 2 2011 February 232011 (two sessions) and March 2 2011 Although Mr Stern providedme with a sheet entitled Documents Exempt From OPRA request thatpurports to explain these redactions I am still unclear as to whythe matter was redacted and whether it was lawfully redacted
First I dont understand references such as NJSA 471A-11(12)(c) The version of OPRA that I have (plus every other oneIve seen) does not have internal numbers within NJSA471A-11 Am I correct that NJSA 471A-11(12)(c) isintended to refer to the exemption for records in connection withcollective negotiations including documents and statements ofstrategy or negotiating position and that NJSA 471A-11(7)is intended to refer to any record within the attorney-clientprivilege This paragraph shall not be construed as exempting fromaccess attorney or consultant bills or invoices except that suchbills or invoices may be redacted to remove any informationprotected by the attorney-client privilege Please advise
Second even if I correctly corresponded the claimed exemptions tothe OPRA statute I have no way of knowing whether the mattersredacted are actually exempt from access When a custodiansuppresses any portion of any requested record NJSA471A-5(g) requires him or her to state the ldquospecific basisrdquo foreach suppressed element Beyond stating the ldquospecific basisrdquo foreach suppressed element he or she is required to ldquoproduce
Records Request
1 of 2 622011 810 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 49 of 77
specific reliable evidence sufficient to meet a statutorilyrecognized basis for confidentialityrdquo Courier News v HunterdonCounty Prosecutorrsquos Office 358 NJ Super 373 382-83 (App Div2003) Further he or she must explain each suppression in amanner that ldquowill enable other parties to assess the applicabilityof the privilege or protectionrdquo Paff v New Jersey Department ofLabor Board of Review 379 NJ Super 346 354-55 (2005)(quoting R 410-2(e))
Records requested
Runnemede Board of Education minutes for the following dates July28 2010 (728 pm session only) August 26 2010 February 22011 February 23 2011 (both sessions) and March 2 2011 Iwould like these minutes redacted as narrowly as possible if atall For each redaction I request a written explanation thatmeets the requirements of the case law cited above
cc Phil Stern
Records Request
2 of 2 622011 810 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 50 of 77
Subject Re Fwd Runnemede Board of Education Open PublicMeetings ActFrom John Paff ltpaffpoboxcomgtDate Mon 09 May 2011 134726 -0400To Nancy Ward ltnwardrunnemedeschoolsorggt
Thank you
On 592011 116 PM Nancy Ward wrote
Mr Paff
The Board has named me Custodian of Records Please direct allfuturecommunication to me The May 10 2011 meeting is theRe-organization ofthe Runnemede Board of Education The agenda is set and is verycomprehensive I intend to defer the letter and any discussionregardingits content to the next regular meeting the date of which willbe setat the re-organization tomorrow night In keeping with thedistrictsmeeting pattern that will be May 25 2011
Nancy BWard EdD
Superintendent of Schools
-----Original Message-----From John PaffSent 572011 42300 PMTo nwardrunnemedeschoolsorgCc vcarmodyrunnemedeschoolsorg psternasgllawcomSubject Fwd Runnemede Board of Education Open Public MeetingsAct
Here is another e-mail in case my original one should have beendirected to Ms Ward and not Ms Carmody
JP
-------- Original Message --------Subject Runnemede Board of Education Open Public Meetings ActDate Sat 07 May 2011 152319 -0400From John Paff
Re Fwd Runnemede Board of Education Open Public Meetings Act
1 of 2 622011 811 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 51 of 77
Reply-To paffpoboxcomTo vcarmodyrunnemedeschoolsorg psternasgllawcom
Ms Carmody and Mr Stern
Attached is a letter that I would like the Board to consider atits May10 2011 meeting Would you please a) acknowledge receipt of theletterand b) distribute it to all the Board members
Note that the last paragraph of the letter indicates that I willfilesuit against the Board if the issues in the letter arentaddressedSo if the Boards agenda for the May 10th meeting is so tightthat myletter cannot be accommodated please advise me of such andprovide ameeting date where my letter will be addressed so that I knowthat I amnot being ignored
Thank you
John Paff ChairmanNew Jersey Libertarian PartysOpen Government Advocacy Project
Re Fwd Runnemede Board of Education Open Public Meetings Act
2 of 2 622011 811 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 52 of 77
Subject OPRA RequestFrom Philip Stern ltpsternasgllawcomgtDate Fri 20 May 2011 161015 -0500To paffpoboxcom ltpaffpoboxcomgtCC Nancy Ward ltnwardrunnemedeschoolsorggt
Mr Paff please find attached to this email a response to your request forbusiness records Please note that in providing you with the attachedrecords the Runnemede Borough Board of Education waives no rightsregarding the attorney-client privilege Do not hesitate to call me if youhave any questions Phil Stern
Philip E SternAdams Stern Gutierrez amp Lattiboudere LLCThe Legal Center1037 Raymond Blvd Suite 710Newark New Jersey 07102(973) 735-2742 (office telephone)(201) 914-2415 (cellular telephone)(973) 735-2743 (office telefax)
May 20 Paff responsepdf
Content-DescriptionMay 20 Paffresponsepdf
Content-Type applicationpdf
Content-Encoding base64
OPRA Request
1 of 1 622011 815 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 53 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 54 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 55 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 56 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 57 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 58 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 59 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 60 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 61 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 62 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 63 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 64 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 65 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 66 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 67 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 68 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 69 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 70 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 71 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 72 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 73 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 74 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 75 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 76 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 77 of 77
- Civil Complaint
- Exhibits
-
Exhibit Page 7Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 46 of 77
Exhibit Page 8Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 47 of 77
Exhibit Page 9Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 48 of 77
Subject Records RequestFrom John Paff ltpaffpoboxcomgtDate Sat 07 May 2011 161444 -0400To vcarmodyrunnemedeschoolsorgCC psternasgllawcom
Ms Carmody
Please accept this e-mail as my request for government records inaccordance with the Open Public Records Act (OPRA) and the commonlaw right of access Please respond and send all responsivedocuments to me via e-mail at paffpoboxcom If e-mail is notpossible please fax responses and responsive records to me at908-325-0129 Also I would appreciate it if you wouldacknowledge your receipt of this e-mail
Background
In response to a records request I recently received redactedexecutive session minutes for the following dates July 28 2010(first session) August 26 2010 February 2 2011 February 232011 (two sessions) and March 2 2011 Although Mr Stern providedme with a sheet entitled Documents Exempt From OPRA request thatpurports to explain these redactions I am still unclear as to whythe matter was redacted and whether it was lawfully redacted
First I dont understand references such as NJSA 471A-11(12)(c) The version of OPRA that I have (plus every other oneIve seen) does not have internal numbers within NJSA471A-11 Am I correct that NJSA 471A-11(12)(c) isintended to refer to the exemption for records in connection withcollective negotiations including documents and statements ofstrategy or negotiating position and that NJSA 471A-11(7)is intended to refer to any record within the attorney-clientprivilege This paragraph shall not be construed as exempting fromaccess attorney or consultant bills or invoices except that suchbills or invoices may be redacted to remove any informationprotected by the attorney-client privilege Please advise
Second even if I correctly corresponded the claimed exemptions tothe OPRA statute I have no way of knowing whether the mattersredacted are actually exempt from access When a custodiansuppresses any portion of any requested record NJSA471A-5(g) requires him or her to state the ldquospecific basisrdquo foreach suppressed element Beyond stating the ldquospecific basisrdquo foreach suppressed element he or she is required to ldquoproduce
Records Request
1 of 2 622011 810 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 49 of 77
specific reliable evidence sufficient to meet a statutorilyrecognized basis for confidentialityrdquo Courier News v HunterdonCounty Prosecutorrsquos Office 358 NJ Super 373 382-83 (App Div2003) Further he or she must explain each suppression in amanner that ldquowill enable other parties to assess the applicabilityof the privilege or protectionrdquo Paff v New Jersey Department ofLabor Board of Review 379 NJ Super 346 354-55 (2005)(quoting R 410-2(e))
Records requested
Runnemede Board of Education minutes for the following dates July28 2010 (728 pm session only) August 26 2010 February 22011 February 23 2011 (both sessions) and March 2 2011 Iwould like these minutes redacted as narrowly as possible if atall For each redaction I request a written explanation thatmeets the requirements of the case law cited above
cc Phil Stern
Records Request
2 of 2 622011 810 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 50 of 77
Subject Re Fwd Runnemede Board of Education Open PublicMeetings ActFrom John Paff ltpaffpoboxcomgtDate Mon 09 May 2011 134726 -0400To Nancy Ward ltnwardrunnemedeschoolsorggt
Thank you
On 592011 116 PM Nancy Ward wrote
Mr Paff
The Board has named me Custodian of Records Please direct allfuturecommunication to me The May 10 2011 meeting is theRe-organization ofthe Runnemede Board of Education The agenda is set and is verycomprehensive I intend to defer the letter and any discussionregardingits content to the next regular meeting the date of which willbe setat the re-organization tomorrow night In keeping with thedistrictsmeeting pattern that will be May 25 2011
Nancy BWard EdD
Superintendent of Schools
-----Original Message-----From John PaffSent 572011 42300 PMTo nwardrunnemedeschoolsorgCc vcarmodyrunnemedeschoolsorg psternasgllawcomSubject Fwd Runnemede Board of Education Open Public MeetingsAct
Here is another e-mail in case my original one should have beendirected to Ms Ward and not Ms Carmody
JP
-------- Original Message --------Subject Runnemede Board of Education Open Public Meetings ActDate Sat 07 May 2011 152319 -0400From John Paff
Re Fwd Runnemede Board of Education Open Public Meetings Act
1 of 2 622011 811 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 51 of 77
Reply-To paffpoboxcomTo vcarmodyrunnemedeschoolsorg psternasgllawcom
Ms Carmody and Mr Stern
Attached is a letter that I would like the Board to consider atits May10 2011 meeting Would you please a) acknowledge receipt of theletterand b) distribute it to all the Board members
Note that the last paragraph of the letter indicates that I willfilesuit against the Board if the issues in the letter arentaddressedSo if the Boards agenda for the May 10th meeting is so tightthat myletter cannot be accommodated please advise me of such andprovide ameeting date where my letter will be addressed so that I knowthat I amnot being ignored
Thank you
John Paff ChairmanNew Jersey Libertarian PartysOpen Government Advocacy Project
Re Fwd Runnemede Board of Education Open Public Meetings Act
2 of 2 622011 811 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 52 of 77
Subject OPRA RequestFrom Philip Stern ltpsternasgllawcomgtDate Fri 20 May 2011 161015 -0500To paffpoboxcom ltpaffpoboxcomgtCC Nancy Ward ltnwardrunnemedeschoolsorggt
Mr Paff please find attached to this email a response to your request forbusiness records Please note that in providing you with the attachedrecords the Runnemede Borough Board of Education waives no rightsregarding the attorney-client privilege Do not hesitate to call me if youhave any questions Phil Stern
Philip E SternAdams Stern Gutierrez amp Lattiboudere LLCThe Legal Center1037 Raymond Blvd Suite 710Newark New Jersey 07102(973) 735-2742 (office telephone)(201) 914-2415 (cellular telephone)(973) 735-2743 (office telefax)
May 20 Paff responsepdf
Content-DescriptionMay 20 Paffresponsepdf
Content-Type applicationpdf
Content-Encoding base64
OPRA Request
1 of 1 622011 815 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 53 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 54 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 55 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 56 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 57 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 58 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 59 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 60 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 61 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 62 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 63 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 64 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 65 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 66 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 67 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 68 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 69 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 70 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 71 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 72 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 73 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 74 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 75 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 76 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 77 of 77
- Civil Complaint
- Exhibits
-
Exhibit Page 8Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 47 of 77
Exhibit Page 9Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 48 of 77
Subject Records RequestFrom John Paff ltpaffpoboxcomgtDate Sat 07 May 2011 161444 -0400To vcarmodyrunnemedeschoolsorgCC psternasgllawcom
Ms Carmody
Please accept this e-mail as my request for government records inaccordance with the Open Public Records Act (OPRA) and the commonlaw right of access Please respond and send all responsivedocuments to me via e-mail at paffpoboxcom If e-mail is notpossible please fax responses and responsive records to me at908-325-0129 Also I would appreciate it if you wouldacknowledge your receipt of this e-mail
Background
In response to a records request I recently received redactedexecutive session minutes for the following dates July 28 2010(first session) August 26 2010 February 2 2011 February 232011 (two sessions) and March 2 2011 Although Mr Stern providedme with a sheet entitled Documents Exempt From OPRA request thatpurports to explain these redactions I am still unclear as to whythe matter was redacted and whether it was lawfully redacted
First I dont understand references such as NJSA 471A-11(12)(c) The version of OPRA that I have (plus every other oneIve seen) does not have internal numbers within NJSA471A-11 Am I correct that NJSA 471A-11(12)(c) isintended to refer to the exemption for records in connection withcollective negotiations including documents and statements ofstrategy or negotiating position and that NJSA 471A-11(7)is intended to refer to any record within the attorney-clientprivilege This paragraph shall not be construed as exempting fromaccess attorney or consultant bills or invoices except that suchbills or invoices may be redacted to remove any informationprotected by the attorney-client privilege Please advise
Second even if I correctly corresponded the claimed exemptions tothe OPRA statute I have no way of knowing whether the mattersredacted are actually exempt from access When a custodiansuppresses any portion of any requested record NJSA471A-5(g) requires him or her to state the ldquospecific basisrdquo foreach suppressed element Beyond stating the ldquospecific basisrdquo foreach suppressed element he or she is required to ldquoproduce
Records Request
1 of 2 622011 810 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 49 of 77
specific reliable evidence sufficient to meet a statutorilyrecognized basis for confidentialityrdquo Courier News v HunterdonCounty Prosecutorrsquos Office 358 NJ Super 373 382-83 (App Div2003) Further he or she must explain each suppression in amanner that ldquowill enable other parties to assess the applicabilityof the privilege or protectionrdquo Paff v New Jersey Department ofLabor Board of Review 379 NJ Super 346 354-55 (2005)(quoting R 410-2(e))
Records requested
Runnemede Board of Education minutes for the following dates July28 2010 (728 pm session only) August 26 2010 February 22011 February 23 2011 (both sessions) and March 2 2011 Iwould like these minutes redacted as narrowly as possible if atall For each redaction I request a written explanation thatmeets the requirements of the case law cited above
cc Phil Stern
Records Request
2 of 2 622011 810 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 50 of 77
Subject Re Fwd Runnemede Board of Education Open PublicMeetings ActFrom John Paff ltpaffpoboxcomgtDate Mon 09 May 2011 134726 -0400To Nancy Ward ltnwardrunnemedeschoolsorggt
Thank you
On 592011 116 PM Nancy Ward wrote
Mr Paff
The Board has named me Custodian of Records Please direct allfuturecommunication to me The May 10 2011 meeting is theRe-organization ofthe Runnemede Board of Education The agenda is set and is verycomprehensive I intend to defer the letter and any discussionregardingits content to the next regular meeting the date of which willbe setat the re-organization tomorrow night In keeping with thedistrictsmeeting pattern that will be May 25 2011
Nancy BWard EdD
Superintendent of Schools
-----Original Message-----From John PaffSent 572011 42300 PMTo nwardrunnemedeschoolsorgCc vcarmodyrunnemedeschoolsorg psternasgllawcomSubject Fwd Runnemede Board of Education Open Public MeetingsAct
Here is another e-mail in case my original one should have beendirected to Ms Ward and not Ms Carmody
JP
-------- Original Message --------Subject Runnemede Board of Education Open Public Meetings ActDate Sat 07 May 2011 152319 -0400From John Paff
Re Fwd Runnemede Board of Education Open Public Meetings Act
1 of 2 622011 811 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 51 of 77
Reply-To paffpoboxcomTo vcarmodyrunnemedeschoolsorg psternasgllawcom
Ms Carmody and Mr Stern
Attached is a letter that I would like the Board to consider atits May10 2011 meeting Would you please a) acknowledge receipt of theletterand b) distribute it to all the Board members
Note that the last paragraph of the letter indicates that I willfilesuit against the Board if the issues in the letter arentaddressedSo if the Boards agenda for the May 10th meeting is so tightthat myletter cannot be accommodated please advise me of such andprovide ameeting date where my letter will be addressed so that I knowthat I amnot being ignored
Thank you
John Paff ChairmanNew Jersey Libertarian PartysOpen Government Advocacy Project
Re Fwd Runnemede Board of Education Open Public Meetings Act
2 of 2 622011 811 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 52 of 77
Subject OPRA RequestFrom Philip Stern ltpsternasgllawcomgtDate Fri 20 May 2011 161015 -0500To paffpoboxcom ltpaffpoboxcomgtCC Nancy Ward ltnwardrunnemedeschoolsorggt
Mr Paff please find attached to this email a response to your request forbusiness records Please note that in providing you with the attachedrecords the Runnemede Borough Board of Education waives no rightsregarding the attorney-client privilege Do not hesitate to call me if youhave any questions Phil Stern
Philip E SternAdams Stern Gutierrez amp Lattiboudere LLCThe Legal Center1037 Raymond Blvd Suite 710Newark New Jersey 07102(973) 735-2742 (office telephone)(201) 914-2415 (cellular telephone)(973) 735-2743 (office telefax)
May 20 Paff responsepdf
Content-DescriptionMay 20 Paffresponsepdf
Content-Type applicationpdf
Content-Encoding base64
OPRA Request
1 of 1 622011 815 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 53 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 54 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 55 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 56 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 57 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 58 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 59 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 60 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 61 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 62 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 63 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 64 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 65 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 66 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 67 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 68 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 69 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 70 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 71 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 72 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 73 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 74 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 75 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 76 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 77 of 77
- Civil Complaint
- Exhibits
-
Exhibit Page 9Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 48 of 77
Subject Records RequestFrom John Paff ltpaffpoboxcomgtDate Sat 07 May 2011 161444 -0400To vcarmodyrunnemedeschoolsorgCC psternasgllawcom
Ms Carmody
Please accept this e-mail as my request for government records inaccordance with the Open Public Records Act (OPRA) and the commonlaw right of access Please respond and send all responsivedocuments to me via e-mail at paffpoboxcom If e-mail is notpossible please fax responses and responsive records to me at908-325-0129 Also I would appreciate it if you wouldacknowledge your receipt of this e-mail
Background
In response to a records request I recently received redactedexecutive session minutes for the following dates July 28 2010(first session) August 26 2010 February 2 2011 February 232011 (two sessions) and March 2 2011 Although Mr Stern providedme with a sheet entitled Documents Exempt From OPRA request thatpurports to explain these redactions I am still unclear as to whythe matter was redacted and whether it was lawfully redacted
First I dont understand references such as NJSA 471A-11(12)(c) The version of OPRA that I have (plus every other oneIve seen) does not have internal numbers within NJSA471A-11 Am I correct that NJSA 471A-11(12)(c) isintended to refer to the exemption for records in connection withcollective negotiations including documents and statements ofstrategy or negotiating position and that NJSA 471A-11(7)is intended to refer to any record within the attorney-clientprivilege This paragraph shall not be construed as exempting fromaccess attorney or consultant bills or invoices except that suchbills or invoices may be redacted to remove any informationprotected by the attorney-client privilege Please advise
Second even if I correctly corresponded the claimed exemptions tothe OPRA statute I have no way of knowing whether the mattersredacted are actually exempt from access When a custodiansuppresses any portion of any requested record NJSA471A-5(g) requires him or her to state the ldquospecific basisrdquo foreach suppressed element Beyond stating the ldquospecific basisrdquo foreach suppressed element he or she is required to ldquoproduce
Records Request
1 of 2 622011 810 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 49 of 77
specific reliable evidence sufficient to meet a statutorilyrecognized basis for confidentialityrdquo Courier News v HunterdonCounty Prosecutorrsquos Office 358 NJ Super 373 382-83 (App Div2003) Further he or she must explain each suppression in amanner that ldquowill enable other parties to assess the applicabilityof the privilege or protectionrdquo Paff v New Jersey Department ofLabor Board of Review 379 NJ Super 346 354-55 (2005)(quoting R 410-2(e))
Records requested
Runnemede Board of Education minutes for the following dates July28 2010 (728 pm session only) August 26 2010 February 22011 February 23 2011 (both sessions) and March 2 2011 Iwould like these minutes redacted as narrowly as possible if atall For each redaction I request a written explanation thatmeets the requirements of the case law cited above
cc Phil Stern
Records Request
2 of 2 622011 810 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 50 of 77
Subject Re Fwd Runnemede Board of Education Open PublicMeetings ActFrom John Paff ltpaffpoboxcomgtDate Mon 09 May 2011 134726 -0400To Nancy Ward ltnwardrunnemedeschoolsorggt
Thank you
On 592011 116 PM Nancy Ward wrote
Mr Paff
The Board has named me Custodian of Records Please direct allfuturecommunication to me The May 10 2011 meeting is theRe-organization ofthe Runnemede Board of Education The agenda is set and is verycomprehensive I intend to defer the letter and any discussionregardingits content to the next regular meeting the date of which willbe setat the re-organization tomorrow night In keeping with thedistrictsmeeting pattern that will be May 25 2011
Nancy BWard EdD
Superintendent of Schools
-----Original Message-----From John PaffSent 572011 42300 PMTo nwardrunnemedeschoolsorgCc vcarmodyrunnemedeschoolsorg psternasgllawcomSubject Fwd Runnemede Board of Education Open Public MeetingsAct
Here is another e-mail in case my original one should have beendirected to Ms Ward and not Ms Carmody
JP
-------- Original Message --------Subject Runnemede Board of Education Open Public Meetings ActDate Sat 07 May 2011 152319 -0400From John Paff
Re Fwd Runnemede Board of Education Open Public Meetings Act
1 of 2 622011 811 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 51 of 77
Reply-To paffpoboxcomTo vcarmodyrunnemedeschoolsorg psternasgllawcom
Ms Carmody and Mr Stern
Attached is a letter that I would like the Board to consider atits May10 2011 meeting Would you please a) acknowledge receipt of theletterand b) distribute it to all the Board members
Note that the last paragraph of the letter indicates that I willfilesuit against the Board if the issues in the letter arentaddressedSo if the Boards agenda for the May 10th meeting is so tightthat myletter cannot be accommodated please advise me of such andprovide ameeting date where my letter will be addressed so that I knowthat I amnot being ignored
Thank you
John Paff ChairmanNew Jersey Libertarian PartysOpen Government Advocacy Project
Re Fwd Runnemede Board of Education Open Public Meetings Act
2 of 2 622011 811 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 52 of 77
Subject OPRA RequestFrom Philip Stern ltpsternasgllawcomgtDate Fri 20 May 2011 161015 -0500To paffpoboxcom ltpaffpoboxcomgtCC Nancy Ward ltnwardrunnemedeschoolsorggt
Mr Paff please find attached to this email a response to your request forbusiness records Please note that in providing you with the attachedrecords the Runnemede Borough Board of Education waives no rightsregarding the attorney-client privilege Do not hesitate to call me if youhave any questions Phil Stern
Philip E SternAdams Stern Gutierrez amp Lattiboudere LLCThe Legal Center1037 Raymond Blvd Suite 710Newark New Jersey 07102(973) 735-2742 (office telephone)(201) 914-2415 (cellular telephone)(973) 735-2743 (office telefax)
May 20 Paff responsepdf
Content-DescriptionMay 20 Paffresponsepdf
Content-Type applicationpdf
Content-Encoding base64
OPRA Request
1 of 1 622011 815 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 53 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 54 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 55 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 56 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 57 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 58 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 59 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 60 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 61 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 62 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 63 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 64 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 65 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 66 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 67 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 68 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 69 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 70 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 71 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 72 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 73 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 74 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 75 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 76 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 77 of 77
- Civil Complaint
- Exhibits
-
Subject Records RequestFrom John Paff ltpaffpoboxcomgtDate Sat 07 May 2011 161444 -0400To vcarmodyrunnemedeschoolsorgCC psternasgllawcom
Ms Carmody
Please accept this e-mail as my request for government records inaccordance with the Open Public Records Act (OPRA) and the commonlaw right of access Please respond and send all responsivedocuments to me via e-mail at paffpoboxcom If e-mail is notpossible please fax responses and responsive records to me at908-325-0129 Also I would appreciate it if you wouldacknowledge your receipt of this e-mail
Background
In response to a records request I recently received redactedexecutive session minutes for the following dates July 28 2010(first session) August 26 2010 February 2 2011 February 232011 (two sessions) and March 2 2011 Although Mr Stern providedme with a sheet entitled Documents Exempt From OPRA request thatpurports to explain these redactions I am still unclear as to whythe matter was redacted and whether it was lawfully redacted
First I dont understand references such as NJSA 471A-11(12)(c) The version of OPRA that I have (plus every other oneIve seen) does not have internal numbers within NJSA471A-11 Am I correct that NJSA 471A-11(12)(c) isintended to refer to the exemption for records in connection withcollective negotiations including documents and statements ofstrategy or negotiating position and that NJSA 471A-11(7)is intended to refer to any record within the attorney-clientprivilege This paragraph shall not be construed as exempting fromaccess attorney or consultant bills or invoices except that suchbills or invoices may be redacted to remove any informationprotected by the attorney-client privilege Please advise
Second even if I correctly corresponded the claimed exemptions tothe OPRA statute I have no way of knowing whether the mattersredacted are actually exempt from access When a custodiansuppresses any portion of any requested record NJSA471A-5(g) requires him or her to state the ldquospecific basisrdquo foreach suppressed element Beyond stating the ldquospecific basisrdquo foreach suppressed element he or she is required to ldquoproduce
Records Request
1 of 2 622011 810 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 49 of 77
specific reliable evidence sufficient to meet a statutorilyrecognized basis for confidentialityrdquo Courier News v HunterdonCounty Prosecutorrsquos Office 358 NJ Super 373 382-83 (App Div2003) Further he or she must explain each suppression in amanner that ldquowill enable other parties to assess the applicabilityof the privilege or protectionrdquo Paff v New Jersey Department ofLabor Board of Review 379 NJ Super 346 354-55 (2005)(quoting R 410-2(e))
Records requested
Runnemede Board of Education minutes for the following dates July28 2010 (728 pm session only) August 26 2010 February 22011 February 23 2011 (both sessions) and March 2 2011 Iwould like these minutes redacted as narrowly as possible if atall For each redaction I request a written explanation thatmeets the requirements of the case law cited above
cc Phil Stern
Records Request
2 of 2 622011 810 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 50 of 77
Subject Re Fwd Runnemede Board of Education Open PublicMeetings ActFrom John Paff ltpaffpoboxcomgtDate Mon 09 May 2011 134726 -0400To Nancy Ward ltnwardrunnemedeschoolsorggt
Thank you
On 592011 116 PM Nancy Ward wrote
Mr Paff
The Board has named me Custodian of Records Please direct allfuturecommunication to me The May 10 2011 meeting is theRe-organization ofthe Runnemede Board of Education The agenda is set and is verycomprehensive I intend to defer the letter and any discussionregardingits content to the next regular meeting the date of which willbe setat the re-organization tomorrow night In keeping with thedistrictsmeeting pattern that will be May 25 2011
Nancy BWard EdD
Superintendent of Schools
-----Original Message-----From John PaffSent 572011 42300 PMTo nwardrunnemedeschoolsorgCc vcarmodyrunnemedeschoolsorg psternasgllawcomSubject Fwd Runnemede Board of Education Open Public MeetingsAct
Here is another e-mail in case my original one should have beendirected to Ms Ward and not Ms Carmody
JP
-------- Original Message --------Subject Runnemede Board of Education Open Public Meetings ActDate Sat 07 May 2011 152319 -0400From John Paff
Re Fwd Runnemede Board of Education Open Public Meetings Act
1 of 2 622011 811 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 51 of 77
Reply-To paffpoboxcomTo vcarmodyrunnemedeschoolsorg psternasgllawcom
Ms Carmody and Mr Stern
Attached is a letter that I would like the Board to consider atits May10 2011 meeting Would you please a) acknowledge receipt of theletterand b) distribute it to all the Board members
Note that the last paragraph of the letter indicates that I willfilesuit against the Board if the issues in the letter arentaddressedSo if the Boards agenda for the May 10th meeting is so tightthat myletter cannot be accommodated please advise me of such andprovide ameeting date where my letter will be addressed so that I knowthat I amnot being ignored
Thank you
John Paff ChairmanNew Jersey Libertarian PartysOpen Government Advocacy Project
Re Fwd Runnemede Board of Education Open Public Meetings Act
2 of 2 622011 811 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 52 of 77
Subject OPRA RequestFrom Philip Stern ltpsternasgllawcomgtDate Fri 20 May 2011 161015 -0500To paffpoboxcom ltpaffpoboxcomgtCC Nancy Ward ltnwardrunnemedeschoolsorggt
Mr Paff please find attached to this email a response to your request forbusiness records Please note that in providing you with the attachedrecords the Runnemede Borough Board of Education waives no rightsregarding the attorney-client privilege Do not hesitate to call me if youhave any questions Phil Stern
Philip E SternAdams Stern Gutierrez amp Lattiboudere LLCThe Legal Center1037 Raymond Blvd Suite 710Newark New Jersey 07102(973) 735-2742 (office telephone)(201) 914-2415 (cellular telephone)(973) 735-2743 (office telefax)
May 20 Paff responsepdf
Content-DescriptionMay 20 Paffresponsepdf
Content-Type applicationpdf
Content-Encoding base64
OPRA Request
1 of 1 622011 815 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 53 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 54 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 55 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 56 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 57 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 58 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 59 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 60 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 61 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 62 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 63 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 64 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 65 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 66 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 67 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 68 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 69 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 70 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 71 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 72 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 73 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 74 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 75 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 76 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 77 of 77
- Civil Complaint
- Exhibits
-
specific reliable evidence sufficient to meet a statutorilyrecognized basis for confidentialityrdquo Courier News v HunterdonCounty Prosecutorrsquos Office 358 NJ Super 373 382-83 (App Div2003) Further he or she must explain each suppression in amanner that ldquowill enable other parties to assess the applicabilityof the privilege or protectionrdquo Paff v New Jersey Department ofLabor Board of Review 379 NJ Super 346 354-55 (2005)(quoting R 410-2(e))
Records requested
Runnemede Board of Education minutes for the following dates July28 2010 (728 pm session only) August 26 2010 February 22011 February 23 2011 (both sessions) and March 2 2011 Iwould like these minutes redacted as narrowly as possible if atall For each redaction I request a written explanation thatmeets the requirements of the case law cited above
cc Phil Stern
Records Request
2 of 2 622011 810 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 50 of 77
Subject Re Fwd Runnemede Board of Education Open PublicMeetings ActFrom John Paff ltpaffpoboxcomgtDate Mon 09 May 2011 134726 -0400To Nancy Ward ltnwardrunnemedeschoolsorggt
Thank you
On 592011 116 PM Nancy Ward wrote
Mr Paff
The Board has named me Custodian of Records Please direct allfuturecommunication to me The May 10 2011 meeting is theRe-organization ofthe Runnemede Board of Education The agenda is set and is verycomprehensive I intend to defer the letter and any discussionregardingits content to the next regular meeting the date of which willbe setat the re-organization tomorrow night In keeping with thedistrictsmeeting pattern that will be May 25 2011
Nancy BWard EdD
Superintendent of Schools
-----Original Message-----From John PaffSent 572011 42300 PMTo nwardrunnemedeschoolsorgCc vcarmodyrunnemedeschoolsorg psternasgllawcomSubject Fwd Runnemede Board of Education Open Public MeetingsAct
Here is another e-mail in case my original one should have beendirected to Ms Ward and not Ms Carmody
JP
-------- Original Message --------Subject Runnemede Board of Education Open Public Meetings ActDate Sat 07 May 2011 152319 -0400From John Paff
Re Fwd Runnemede Board of Education Open Public Meetings Act
1 of 2 622011 811 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 51 of 77
Reply-To paffpoboxcomTo vcarmodyrunnemedeschoolsorg psternasgllawcom
Ms Carmody and Mr Stern
Attached is a letter that I would like the Board to consider atits May10 2011 meeting Would you please a) acknowledge receipt of theletterand b) distribute it to all the Board members
Note that the last paragraph of the letter indicates that I willfilesuit against the Board if the issues in the letter arentaddressedSo if the Boards agenda for the May 10th meeting is so tightthat myletter cannot be accommodated please advise me of such andprovide ameeting date where my letter will be addressed so that I knowthat I amnot being ignored
Thank you
John Paff ChairmanNew Jersey Libertarian PartysOpen Government Advocacy Project
Re Fwd Runnemede Board of Education Open Public Meetings Act
2 of 2 622011 811 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 52 of 77
Subject OPRA RequestFrom Philip Stern ltpsternasgllawcomgtDate Fri 20 May 2011 161015 -0500To paffpoboxcom ltpaffpoboxcomgtCC Nancy Ward ltnwardrunnemedeschoolsorggt
Mr Paff please find attached to this email a response to your request forbusiness records Please note that in providing you with the attachedrecords the Runnemede Borough Board of Education waives no rightsregarding the attorney-client privilege Do not hesitate to call me if youhave any questions Phil Stern
Philip E SternAdams Stern Gutierrez amp Lattiboudere LLCThe Legal Center1037 Raymond Blvd Suite 710Newark New Jersey 07102(973) 735-2742 (office telephone)(201) 914-2415 (cellular telephone)(973) 735-2743 (office telefax)
May 20 Paff responsepdf
Content-DescriptionMay 20 Paffresponsepdf
Content-Type applicationpdf
Content-Encoding base64
OPRA Request
1 of 1 622011 815 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 53 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 54 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 55 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 56 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 57 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 58 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 59 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 60 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 61 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 62 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 63 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 64 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 65 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 66 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 67 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 68 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 69 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 70 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 71 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 72 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 73 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 74 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 75 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 76 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 77 of 77
- Civil Complaint
- Exhibits
-
Subject Re Fwd Runnemede Board of Education Open PublicMeetings ActFrom John Paff ltpaffpoboxcomgtDate Mon 09 May 2011 134726 -0400To Nancy Ward ltnwardrunnemedeschoolsorggt
Thank you
On 592011 116 PM Nancy Ward wrote
Mr Paff
The Board has named me Custodian of Records Please direct allfuturecommunication to me The May 10 2011 meeting is theRe-organization ofthe Runnemede Board of Education The agenda is set and is verycomprehensive I intend to defer the letter and any discussionregardingits content to the next regular meeting the date of which willbe setat the re-organization tomorrow night In keeping with thedistrictsmeeting pattern that will be May 25 2011
Nancy BWard EdD
Superintendent of Schools
-----Original Message-----From John PaffSent 572011 42300 PMTo nwardrunnemedeschoolsorgCc vcarmodyrunnemedeschoolsorg psternasgllawcomSubject Fwd Runnemede Board of Education Open Public MeetingsAct
Here is another e-mail in case my original one should have beendirected to Ms Ward and not Ms Carmody
JP
-------- Original Message --------Subject Runnemede Board of Education Open Public Meetings ActDate Sat 07 May 2011 152319 -0400From John Paff
Re Fwd Runnemede Board of Education Open Public Meetings Act
1 of 2 622011 811 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 51 of 77
Reply-To paffpoboxcomTo vcarmodyrunnemedeschoolsorg psternasgllawcom
Ms Carmody and Mr Stern
Attached is a letter that I would like the Board to consider atits May10 2011 meeting Would you please a) acknowledge receipt of theletterand b) distribute it to all the Board members
Note that the last paragraph of the letter indicates that I willfilesuit against the Board if the issues in the letter arentaddressedSo if the Boards agenda for the May 10th meeting is so tightthat myletter cannot be accommodated please advise me of such andprovide ameeting date where my letter will be addressed so that I knowthat I amnot being ignored
Thank you
John Paff ChairmanNew Jersey Libertarian PartysOpen Government Advocacy Project
Re Fwd Runnemede Board of Education Open Public Meetings Act
2 of 2 622011 811 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 52 of 77
Subject OPRA RequestFrom Philip Stern ltpsternasgllawcomgtDate Fri 20 May 2011 161015 -0500To paffpoboxcom ltpaffpoboxcomgtCC Nancy Ward ltnwardrunnemedeschoolsorggt
Mr Paff please find attached to this email a response to your request forbusiness records Please note that in providing you with the attachedrecords the Runnemede Borough Board of Education waives no rightsregarding the attorney-client privilege Do not hesitate to call me if youhave any questions Phil Stern
Philip E SternAdams Stern Gutierrez amp Lattiboudere LLCThe Legal Center1037 Raymond Blvd Suite 710Newark New Jersey 07102(973) 735-2742 (office telephone)(201) 914-2415 (cellular telephone)(973) 735-2743 (office telefax)
May 20 Paff responsepdf
Content-DescriptionMay 20 Paffresponsepdf
Content-Type applicationpdf
Content-Encoding base64
OPRA Request
1 of 1 622011 815 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 53 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 54 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 55 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 56 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 57 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 58 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 59 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 60 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 61 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 62 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 63 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 64 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 65 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 66 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 67 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 68 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 69 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 70 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 71 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 72 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 73 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 74 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 75 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 76 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 77 of 77
- Civil Complaint
- Exhibits
-
Reply-To paffpoboxcomTo vcarmodyrunnemedeschoolsorg psternasgllawcom
Ms Carmody and Mr Stern
Attached is a letter that I would like the Board to consider atits May10 2011 meeting Would you please a) acknowledge receipt of theletterand b) distribute it to all the Board members
Note that the last paragraph of the letter indicates that I willfilesuit against the Board if the issues in the letter arentaddressedSo if the Boards agenda for the May 10th meeting is so tightthat myletter cannot be accommodated please advise me of such andprovide ameeting date where my letter will be addressed so that I knowthat I amnot being ignored
Thank you
John Paff ChairmanNew Jersey Libertarian PartysOpen Government Advocacy Project
Re Fwd Runnemede Board of Education Open Public Meetings Act
2 of 2 622011 811 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 52 of 77
Subject OPRA RequestFrom Philip Stern ltpsternasgllawcomgtDate Fri 20 May 2011 161015 -0500To paffpoboxcom ltpaffpoboxcomgtCC Nancy Ward ltnwardrunnemedeschoolsorggt
Mr Paff please find attached to this email a response to your request forbusiness records Please note that in providing you with the attachedrecords the Runnemede Borough Board of Education waives no rightsregarding the attorney-client privilege Do not hesitate to call me if youhave any questions Phil Stern
Philip E SternAdams Stern Gutierrez amp Lattiboudere LLCThe Legal Center1037 Raymond Blvd Suite 710Newark New Jersey 07102(973) 735-2742 (office telephone)(201) 914-2415 (cellular telephone)(973) 735-2743 (office telefax)
May 20 Paff responsepdf
Content-DescriptionMay 20 Paffresponsepdf
Content-Type applicationpdf
Content-Encoding base64
OPRA Request
1 of 1 622011 815 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 53 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 54 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 55 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 56 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 57 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 58 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 59 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 60 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 61 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 62 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 63 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 64 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 65 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 66 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 67 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 68 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 69 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 70 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 71 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 72 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 73 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 74 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 75 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 76 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 77 of 77
- Civil Complaint
- Exhibits
-
Subject OPRA RequestFrom Philip Stern ltpsternasgllawcomgtDate Fri 20 May 2011 161015 -0500To paffpoboxcom ltpaffpoboxcomgtCC Nancy Ward ltnwardrunnemedeschoolsorggt
Mr Paff please find attached to this email a response to your request forbusiness records Please note that in providing you with the attachedrecords the Runnemede Borough Board of Education waives no rightsregarding the attorney-client privilege Do not hesitate to call me if youhave any questions Phil Stern
Philip E SternAdams Stern Gutierrez amp Lattiboudere LLCThe Legal Center1037 Raymond Blvd Suite 710Newark New Jersey 07102(973) 735-2742 (office telephone)(201) 914-2415 (cellular telephone)(973) 735-2743 (office telefax)
May 20 Paff responsepdf
Content-DescriptionMay 20 Paffresponsepdf
Content-Type applicationpdf
Content-Encoding base64
OPRA Request
1 of 1 622011 815 PM
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 53 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 54 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 55 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 56 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 57 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 58 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 59 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 60 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 61 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 62 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 63 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 64 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 65 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 66 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 67 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 68 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 69 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 70 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 71 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 72 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 73 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 74 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 75 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 76 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 77 of 77
- Civil Complaint
- Exhibits
-
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 54 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 55 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 56 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 57 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 58 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 59 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 60 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 61 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 62 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 63 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 64 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 65 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 66 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 67 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 68 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 69 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 70 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 71 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 72 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 73 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 74 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 75 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 76 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 77 of 77
- Civil Complaint
- Exhibits
-
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 55 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 56 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 57 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 58 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 59 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 60 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 61 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 62 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 63 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 64 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 65 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 66 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 67 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 68 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 69 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 70 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 71 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 72 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 73 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 74 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 75 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 76 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 77 of 77
- Civil Complaint
- Exhibits
-
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 56 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 57 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 58 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 59 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 60 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 61 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 62 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 63 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 64 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 65 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 66 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 67 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 68 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 69 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 70 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 71 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 72 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 73 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 74 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 75 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 76 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 77 of 77
- Civil Complaint
- Exhibits
-
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 57 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 58 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 59 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 60 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 61 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 62 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 63 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 64 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 65 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 66 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 67 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 68 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 69 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 70 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 71 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 72 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 73 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 74 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 75 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 76 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 77 of 77
- Civil Complaint
- Exhibits
-
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 58 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 59 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 60 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 61 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 62 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 63 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 64 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 65 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 66 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 67 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 68 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 69 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 70 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 71 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 72 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 73 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 74 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 75 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 76 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 77 of 77
- Civil Complaint
- Exhibits
-
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 59 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 60 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 61 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 62 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 63 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 64 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 65 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 66 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 67 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 68 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 69 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 70 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 71 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 72 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 73 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 74 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 75 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 76 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 77 of 77
- Civil Complaint
- Exhibits
-
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 60 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 61 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 62 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 63 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 64 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 65 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 66 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 67 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 68 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 69 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 70 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 71 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 72 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 73 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 74 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 75 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 76 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 77 of 77
- Civil Complaint
- Exhibits
-
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 61 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 62 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 63 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 64 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 65 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 66 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 67 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 68 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 69 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 70 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 71 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 72 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 73 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 74 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 75 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 76 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 77 of 77
- Civil Complaint
- Exhibits
-
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 62 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 63 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 64 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 65 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 66 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 67 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 68 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 69 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 70 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 71 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 72 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 73 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 74 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 75 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 76 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 77 of 77
- Civil Complaint
- Exhibits
-
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 63 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 64 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 65 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 66 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 67 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 68 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 69 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 70 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 71 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 72 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 73 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 74 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 75 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 76 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 77 of 77
- Civil Complaint
- Exhibits
-
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 64 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 65 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 66 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 67 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 68 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 69 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 70 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 71 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 72 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 73 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 74 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 75 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 76 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 77 of 77
- Civil Complaint
- Exhibits
-
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 65 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 66 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 67 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 68 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 69 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 70 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 71 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 72 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 73 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 74 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 75 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 76 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 77 of 77
- Civil Complaint
- Exhibits
-
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 66 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 67 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 68 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 69 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 70 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 71 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 72 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 73 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 74 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 75 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 76 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 77 of 77
- Civil Complaint
- Exhibits
-
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 67 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 68 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 69 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 70 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 71 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 72 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 73 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 74 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 75 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 76 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 77 of 77
- Civil Complaint
- Exhibits
-
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 68 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 69 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 70 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 71 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 72 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 73 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 74 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 75 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 76 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 77 of 77
- Civil Complaint
- Exhibits
-
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 69 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 70 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 71 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 72 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 73 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 74 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 75 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 76 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 77 of 77
- Civil Complaint
- Exhibits
-
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 70 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 71 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 72 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 73 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 74 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 75 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 76 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 77 of 77
- Civil Complaint
- Exhibits
-
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 71 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 72 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 73 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 74 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 75 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 76 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 77 of 77
- Civil Complaint
- Exhibits
-
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 72 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 73 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 74 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 75 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 76 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 77 of 77
- Civil Complaint
- Exhibits
-
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 73 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 74 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 75 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 76 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 77 of 77
- Civil Complaint
- Exhibits
-
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 74 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 75 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 76 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 77 of 77
- Civil Complaint
- Exhibits
-
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 75 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 76 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 77 of 77
- Civil Complaint
- Exhibits
-
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 76 of 77
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 77 of 77
- Civil Complaint
- Exhibits
-
Paff v Runnemede Exhibit Page 77 of 77
- Civil Complaint
- Exhibits
-