Dear Rowan University,

Please accept this electronic request for public records made under OPRA and the common law right of access. I am not required to fill out an official form or use a particular software platform to submit my request per NJSA 47:1A-5(f), which states that an email from a requestor including all of the information required on the adopted form shall suffice in place of a completed form as a valid government record request.

I HAVE NOT been convicted of any indictable offense under the laws of New Jersey, any other state, or the United States.

I WILL NOT use the requested government records for a commercial purpose.

I AM NOT seeking records in connection with a legal proceeding.

Records requested:

I am requesting access to government records relating to the Voluntary Separation Incentive Program (“VSIP”) referenced in the March 18, 2026 email from the University President.
Please provide records identifying the names and job titles of all Rowan University employees who applied for the VSIP program.

My preferred delivery method for response(s) to this request is by E-mail as attachments. Please confirm you have received this request. If you are not the custodian of records, please forward my request to that person and provide their email address to me for future reference.

If any portion of this request is denied, please provide the specific legal basis for the denial and identify any responsive records being withheld.

Yours faithfully,
Not Ali

Dear Feld, Lorra Arsinoe,

Thank you for your response.
I respectfully disagree with Rowan University's denial of access to the requested records.
My request seeks the names and job titles of employees who applied for the VSIP program. While N.J.S.A. 47:1A-10 exempts certain personnel records from disclosure, the statute specifically provides that an employee's name, title, position, salary, payroll record, length of service, date of separation, and the reason therefor are generally accessible government records.
The fact that an employee elected to participate in a university-administered voluntary separation incentive program does not necessarily transform otherwise disclosable information into a confidential personnel record. Moreover, my request does not seek evaluations, disciplinary records, medical information, pension details, or other sensitive personnel information.
Accordingly, I request that Rowan University reconsider its determination and either:
Produce the requested records; or
Provide a more detailed explanation of how the cited authorities specifically apply to a list of employees who voluntarily applied for a publicly funded separation incentive program.
In the alternative, if Rowan University believes portions of the records are exempt, please identify whether any reasonably segregable non-exempt information can be disclosed.
I reserve all rights to pursue review before the Government Records Council or the Superior Court of New Jersey.
Thank you for your attention to this matter, and I look forward to your response.

Yours sincerely,

Not Ali

Dear Ms. Feld,
Thank you for your response.

I understand Rowan University's position that an employee's application for the Voluntary Separation Incentive Program ("VSIP") does not necessarily mean that the employee was accepted into or ultimately participated in the program. However, I respectfully request further clarification regarding the legal basis for withholding the requested records.

My request seeks only the names and job titles of employees who applied for the VSIP. Rowan University has stated that these records are exempt because they concern employees who merely applied for the program. However, neither your original denial nor your subsequent response identifies a specific provision of OPRA that expressly exempts the fact that a public employee submitted an application to a university-administered separation incentive program.

As you note, OPRA generally permits access to certain personnel-related information, including employee names, titles, positions, length of service, and separation-related information. While I recognize that personnel records are subject to exemptions, I respectfully request an explanation of why the fact of applying for the VSIP constitutes confidential personnel information rather than information concerning participation in a publicly funded employment program.

If Rowan University contends that disclosure would reveal exempt personnel information, please identify the specific statutory, regulatory, or case-law authority supporting that conclusion. In addition, please advise whether any reasonably segregable portions of the responsive records—such as employee names and titles—can be disclosed with any exempt information redacted.

Alternatively, if records exist identifying employees who were approved for, accepted into, or ultimately received benefits under the VSIP, please clarify whether Rowan University considers those records disclosable and, if so, whether they can be produced in response to a modified request (such as those who were approved for the program).

Thank you for your time and consideration. I look forward to your response.

Yours sincerely,

Not Ali

Dear Records Custodian,
I am writing again regarding my OPRA request for records identifying employees who applied for Rowan University's Voluntary Separation Incentive Program ("VSIP"). I have not received a response to my previous correspondence seeking clarification of the University's denial.

To date, Rowan University has not identified any specific provision of OPRA, regulation, or court decision that exempts from disclosure the names and job titles of public employees who applied for the VSIP. Instead, Rowan has stated only that applying for the program does not necessarily mean an employee was accepted into or participated in it. While that may be true, it does not explain the legal basis for withholding the requested records.

OPRA requires a records custodian to identify the legal authority supporting a denial of access. Accordingly, I again request that Rowan identify the specific statutory exemption, regulation, executive order, or case law upon which it relies to withhold records showing which employees applied for the VSIP.

I also request that Rowan explain why the fact that a public employee submitted an application to a publicly administered employment-separation incentive program constitutes exempt personnel information. My request seeks only employee names and job titles and does not seek personal, medical, financial, or other sensitive information.

If Rowan believes portions of responsive records are exempt, OPRA generally requires disclosure of reasonably segregable non-exempt information. Please advise whether responsive records can be produced with any legitimately exempt information redacted.

Alternatively, if Rowan's position is limited to applicants, please advise whether records identifying employees who were approved for, accepted into, or ultimately received benefits under the VSIP are disclosable. If so, please treat this correspondence as a modified request for those records.

If Rowan continues to deny access, I request a final written denial identifying all legal authorities relied upon and explaining why each applies to the requested records. Absent such authority, I will consider pursuing the remedies available under OPRA, including filing a Denial of Access Complaint with the Government Records Council and/or instituting an action in Superior Court.

I would appreciate a response within a reasonable time as you have not replied in 12 days.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Dear Feld, Lorra Arsinoe,

Thank you for your response. I respectfully disagree with Rowan University's interpretation of OPRA as applied to this request.

My request is not for confidential personnel evaluations, disciplinary records, medical information, or other traditionally exempt contents of personnel files. Rather, I am seeking the identities of employees who applied for or were approved to participate in a publicly funded separation incentive program. The expenditure of public funds and the administration of a public employment program are matters of significant public interest.
OPRA expressly provides for disclosure of certain personnel-related information, including employee names, titles, salaries, length of service, dates of separation, and pension information. While Rowan asserts that participation in the VSIP is categorically exempt because it reflects an employment-related decision, the University has not identified any specific statutory provision that expressly exempts records showing participation in a publicly funded incentive program.

Moreover, the assertion that disclosure of an employee's application status would reveal confidential intentions regarding future employment appears speculative, particularly where employees have voluntarily sought participation in a formal University program designed to facilitate separation from public employment. The fact that an employee applied for or was accepted into such a program is not analogous to the type of intimate personnel information OPRA was intended to shield from public scrutiny.

I also disagree with Rowan's position that responsive records cannot be reasonably segregated. My request seeks only names, titles, departments, and participation status. Any genuinely exempt information could be redacted while producing non-exempt portions of responsive records.

Finally, I note that OPRA exemptions are to be construed narrowly, while disclosure requirements are construed broadly in favor of public access. A blanket denial of all records relating to applicants and participants in the VSIP appears inconsistent with those principles.

Accordingly, I request that Rowan reconsider its denial and provide a more detailed explanation, including the specific legal authority and case law on which it relies to withhold records identifying applicants, approved participants, and recipients of benefits under the VSIP.

If Rowan maintains its denial, please consider this a request for a Vaughn-style index or an equivalent description of responsive records, along with the legal basis for withholding each category of records, so that I may evaluate my options for further review.

I look forward to your timely response.