Amendments cutting OPRA effectiveness tabled, as bill is pulled from legislative agenda at the last hour
By Lev D. Zilbermints
TRENTON – A controversial piece of legislation that would have likely made the Open Public Records Act (OPRA) toothless was pulled from the legislative agenda. The move occurred less than an hour before the Assembly Appropriations Committee was to meet, NorthJersey.com wrote in its March 14, 2024 online story.
The decision to pull the bill from the agenda occurred only three days after both the Assembly and Senate held public hearings on the proposed OPRA amendments. According to a March 11, 2024 story in newjerseymonitor.com, under the 29-page bill, “draft” documents would become private; agencies would be able to exempt records and seek court orders against requestors who are deemed to be nuisances; data brokers would be barred from acquiring public documents; and governments could redact more information from records.
An editorial in northjersey.com dated March 14, 2024 implores New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy “not to allow Legislature to decimate transparency, OPRA.” The editorial, signed by three different executive editors and three directors representing USA Today Network; NorthJersey.com and The Record; Asbury Park Press; Burlington County Times; South Jersey; MyCentralJersey.com, the Courier News and the Home News Tribune, gives a checklist of what the proposed amendments to the Open Public Records Act would do.
As given, these amendments would:
- Exempt or limit public access to government email, addresses, email addresses, digital calendar, call logs and dog license information.
- Require that requests for email include a “specific subject matter” and a “discrete and limited time period,” and they would need to pertain to a specific person, rather than to a job title or government department, as is allowed now.
- Ban the release of metadata information about when electronic files were created and who created them.
- Allow agencies to deny requests judged to lead to possible “harassment”. Require the use of official OPRA request forms.
- Allow for delays on requests or data more than a year old.
- Change police related to fees recouped by attorneys who sue for access to records.
Unanswered Questions
It is unclear what would happen if the person filing an OPRA request does not know who the specific person is. Presumably the OPRA request would be denied, as under the proposed amendments, job title or government department would be an OPRA requirement.
Another question is whether “specific subject matter” and “discrete and limited time period” would help or hinder those filing OPRA requests. Who would decide what is harassment and how it pertains to OPRA? All these questions would likely be decided in court cases lasting years.
Two sides to a story
According to newjerseymonitor.com, the bill’s supporters say that amendments are needed to update the OPRA, which was passed in 2002. Commercial requesters were blamed for abusing the law in unimaginable ways since its passage in 2002, newjerseymonitor.com wrote.
According to the New Jersey Monitor, Lori Buckelew of the New Jersey League of Municipalities was just one of a handful of people who testified in support of the bill. Ms. Buckelew said that privacy laws require an update to the Open Public Records Act.
“OPRA was enacted at a time when dial-up internet was cutting edge, Google was in its infancy, and identity theft was your sibling borrowing your driver’s license to get into the college bar. Fast forward 20 years, and not a week goes by that you do not hear of a data breach and calls for protection of personal information. Under these bills, those protections are given,” Buckelew said during her testimony, New Jersey Monitor reported.
Privacy is one thing. It is a different matter when proposed revisions are fast-tracked by the very politicians that stand to gain from the revisions to the Open Public Records Act.
According to the March 11 issue of the newjerseymonitor.com, state Senator Paul Sarlo (D-Bergen), one the main sponsors of the OPRA amendments, “fled a gaggle of reporters on Monday (March 11) after Monday’s Senate vote and (Assemblyman Joe) Danielsen told a New Jersey Monitor reporter that news coverage of the bill has mischaracterized the changes in the bill.”
“Over half of them are increasing, creating, or improving access to documents. None of you have the courage to print that, right? It’s fake news. As far as I can tell, it’s disingenuous, and it speaks to the integrity of every one of those journalists,” Danielsen said.
Statement by New Jersey Society of Professional Journalists
Assemblyman Danielsen’s statement created a furor among journalists. The New Jersey Society of Professional Journalists Board of Directors issued a statement condemning Danielsen’s remarks to New Jersey Monitor. The NJ – SPJ Board of Directors demanded an apology from Assemblyman Danielsen.
“We are appalled that Assemblyman Danielsen has managed to not only attack the integrity of our colleagues, but use a well-known trope that is echoed when one does not like the coverage they are receiving.
The reason we know what is in the bill is because journalists across the state read the bill before reporting on it.
Though two committees approved the release of the proposal to the full chamber, it was quite clear on Monday (March 11) that a cross section of New Jerseyans – not just journalists – are against this regressive change to OPRA.
We demand an apology from the assemblyman for his attack on journalists in this state who work hard to uphold our Code of Ethics, which includes verifying information before releasing it.
NJ-SPJ also calls on legislators to share their amendments PUBLICLY before they are even considered by their respective chambers.”
Criticism against the OPRA amendments
According to newjerseymonitor.com, “critics challenged claims that modernization and cost concerns prompted the legislation, accusing lawmakers of fast-tracking the bill to shroud themselves in secrecy.
“Corruption does not always come in the form of gold bars or muscling your way into a Senate primary candidacy. It’s when bodies like this act against the public interest. It’s very telling, and borderline coordinated that both bodies are doing this at the same time. Let’s get something straight: the people in this room own the data,” Scott Gawrych, a Woodbridge resident, said, according to New Jersey Monitor.
Charlie Kratovil, a frequent OPRA filer and the editor of the online newspaper New Brunswick Today, made his view known. According to New Jersey Monitor, Kratovil said, “It’s great that you have met with the (New Jersey League of Municipalities) League and others, but this process here did not include people who actually file OPRA requests. They were not at the table, and this is being rushed through. So, I think the only appropriate course of action is to put the brakes on, to vote no, and to gather input before you take any action,” newjerseymonitor.com reported in its online March 11 edition.
Even though the amendments to the Open Public Records Act (OPRA) were pulled from the legislative agenda, the danger to OPRA still remains. The anti-OPRA legislation could still be introduced at a later date. First Amendment activists and allies will be keeping a watchful eye on any legislation that would seek to undermine the New Jersey Open Public Records Act.
