07020 Forums  

Go Back   07020 Forums > Politics > State & National Politics > OPRA

OPRA NJ Open Public Records Act

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 02-14-2017, 04:46 PM
prattjus prattjus is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Edgewater, NJ, USA
Posts: 516
prattjus is on a distinguished road
Sponsor promises to amend attorney fee-shifting language in pending OPRA bill.

On February 13, 2017, the Assembly State and Local Government Committee favorably recommended Assembly Bill No. 4532 which would, in its current form, weaken the Open Public Records Act (OPRA) by relieving government agencies from paying a successful OPRA plaintiff's attorney fees if "the court or [Government Records Council] finds that the decision to deny access was reasonable and made in good faith after due diligence."

OPRA's mandatory fee-shifting provision is one of the law's most important features. According to a 2005 Appellate Division case, without fee-shifting, "the ordinary citizen would be waging a quixotic battle against a public entity vested with almost inexhaustible resources. By making the custodian of the government record responsible for the payment of counsel fees to a prevailing requestor, the Legislature intended to even the fight."

But, during yesterday's hearing, Committee Chairman Troy Singleton remarked that he was assured by Assemblyman Wayne P. DeAngelo, one of the A-4532's three current sponsors, that the bill's proposed limitation on attorney fee-shifting was intended to apply only to lawsuits where the "personal government records"--a new category of exempted records created by the bill--were at issue. The bill defines this new category as "consist[ing] of or pertain[ing] solely to a pet or home alarm system permit, license, or registration."

Earlier this afternoon, I spoke with Elizabeth A. Meyers, DeAngelo's chief of staff, who confirmed that it was never DeAngelo's intention to so dramatically alter OPRA's fee-shifting structure. Meyers said that DeAngelo has instructed the Office of Legislative Services to amend the bill to make it clear that the bill's limitation on fee-shifting applied onto to court cases where "personal government records" (i.e. pet and home alarm licenses) were being sought. She said that the curative language, which should be available on-line within a few days, would be offered as an amendment when the bill reaches the Assembly floor.


More...
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Union County pays $10,000 to settle OPRA requestor's fee claim. prattjus OPRA 0 03-31-2016 05:19 PM
Appellate Division: OPRA's fee shifting provision has no bearing on indigent's right prattjus OPRA 0 10-06-2014 10:53 AM
School Board appeals Mercer judge's fee award to pro-se attorney in OPRA case. prattjus OPRA 0 06-06-2014 11:05 AM
Two recent OPRA cases: One win and one still pending decision prattjus OPRA 0 11-03-2013 03:15 PM
NJ Attorney General proposes OPRA rules prattjus OPRA 0 11-11-2010 12:52 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:16 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9 Beta 2
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 07020.com - All rights reserved