Dear Matawan Borough,

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 N.J.S.A. 47:1A-6(f), which states that an email from a requestor including all information required on the adopted form shall suffice 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 records for a commercial purpose.
I AM NOT seeking records in connection with a legal proceeding.

Records requested:

I request all records, documents, communications, spreadsheets, financial analyses, emails, memos, notes, and internal correspondence related to debt service, financial projections, tax impact analysis, bonding strategy, and financial decision-making within the Borough of Matawan from January 1, 2024 to the present. This includes all discussions of debt management, risks, red flags, and financial concerns. This request includes but is not limited to the following:
1. All internal financial communications:

• All emails, letters, memos, notes, and internal correspondence between the Mayor, Councilmembers, Borough Administrator, Municipal Clerk, CFO, Finance staff, Auditor, Bond Counsel, Redevelopment Counsel, cannabis counsel, and any outside consultant discussing financial conditions, debt capacity, tax impact, bonding, repayment schedules, or financial risk.

2. All records related to Bond Ordinances 25-18 and 25-19:

• All spreadsheets, calculations, worksheets, drafts, financial models, and projections used to evaluate debt service, tax impact, or financing options.
• All internal concerns, warnings, objections, or red flags raised regarding these ordinances.
• All versions of presentations, charts, or explanatory documents created for the governing body or public.

3. All communications with financial professionals:

• All correspondence with the Auditor, Bond Counsel, outside financial advisors, rating agencies, or any consultant relating to debt, bonding, tax levy impact, financial stability, or municipal creditworthiness.
• All communications related to formal or informal financial warnings or risk assessments.

4. All financial risk or red-flag documents:

• Any internal or external report identifying financial vulnerabilities, debt limits, potential defaults, tax impact risks, or concerns regarding increased debt load.
• Any documents withheld from public meetings or not shared with taxpayers.

5. All communications about public messaging regarding debt:

• All emails, drafts, or discussions about how to present debt, tax impact, bonding, or financial information to the public or media.
• All discussions of how to describe or “frame” the financial impact in public meetings, newsletters, or digital communications.

6. All financial analyses involving new bonding or debt assumptions:

• All spreadsheets and internal or external calculations including amortization schedules, payment tables, principal and interest projections, tax rate implications, and multi-year financial modeling.
• All revised or updated calculations.

7. All communications involving financial disputes:

• Any disagreements, disputes, or concerns raised between the CFO, Auditor, BA/CAO, Bond Counsel, Redevelopment Counsel, cannabis counsel, or elected officials regarding debt, bonding, budgets, or financial decisions.

8. All legal communications involving financial matters:

• All attorney communications regarding fiscal issues, bond ordinances, tax impact, debt risk, property acquisition, redevelopment financing, cannabis business financial impacts, or potential financial exposure.
• All attorney billing entries related to financial matters.

9. All drafts, studies, and internal notes:

• All working papers, handwritten notes, analysis drafts, and financial planning documents.
• All documents transmitted to or from elected officials regarding the Borough’s financial position.

This request applies to ALL attorneys, consultants, auditors, cannabis counsel, bond counsel, financial advisors, and outside professionals who performed work for or communicated with the Borough regarding financial matters. Records held by outside consultants or outside attorneys are government records and must be retrieved and produced in full compliance with OPRA.

Citizen protections and legal requirements governing this request:
1. Native format production requirement (Paff v. Galloway):

• All electronic records must be produced in their native formats including MSG, EML, PST, XLSX, CSV, ICS, DOCX, and EXIF-intact images.
• Do not convert native electronic files into PDF.

2. Metadata requirement:

• Metadata is part of the government record. Include creation dates, modification dates, authors, file paths, email headers, and version history.

3. Redaction rules:

• If any portion is redacted or withheld, the Borough must provide a GRC-compliant redaction index with specific statutory citations.
• Blanket redactions are prohibited.

4. Seven-business-day rule:

• The Borough must respond within 7 business days per N.J.S.A. 47:1A-5(i).

5. Anti-delay protections:

• Requests for clarification do not toll the deadline unless legally required.
• Delays due to staffing, workload, or waiting on other departments are unlawful.

6. Anti-extension protections:

• Any extension request must include:
a. A specific factual justification
b. A statutory basis
c. A firm date certain
• Open-ended or vague extensions violate Burnett v. Gloucester and Paff v. DOC.

7. Splitting of records:

• Any records currently available must be provided immediately.

8. Third-party retrieval requirement:

• Records held by outside attorneys, cannabis counsel, auditors, bond counsel, financial advisors, or consultants must be retrieved and produced.

9. Custodian responsibility:

• If you are not the custodian, forward this immediately to the correct custodian and provide their contact information.

10. State and federal protections:

• This request is protected activity under OPRA, the First Amendment, the New Jersey Constitution, and the New Jersey Civil Rights Act.
• No retaliation, obstruction, or adverse treatment may be taken against any citizen exercising these rights.

My preferred delivery method for all responses is email with attachments.

Please confirm receipt of this request. If you are not the custodian of records, forward it immediately and provide their email address.

Thank you,
John Certo

Dear Records Custodian Wynne,

I write in response to the December 9, 2025 correspondence transmitted by outside counsel, Plosia Cohen LLC, regarding my November 30, 2025 OPRA and common law request for all internal financial communications, debt service analyses, tax impact spreadsheets, bonding related correspondence, and related records from January 1, 2024 to the present, including records held by outside attorneys, consultants, bond counsel, redevelopment counsel, cannabis counsel, auditors, financial advisors, and other professionals.

Your counsel’s letter acknowledges that my request consists of nine discrete categories of records, including internal financial communications among Borough officials and professionals, records related to Bond Ordinances 25-18 and 25-19, communications with financial professionals, financial risk and red flag documents, communications about public messaging regarding debt, financial analyses involving new bonding or debt assumptions, communications involving financial disputes, legal communications involving financial matters (including attorney billing entries related to financial matters), and drafts, studies, and internal notes regarding the Borough’s financial position. The letter then invokes N.J.S.A. 47:1A-5(i) and states that the Borough requires a three week extension and anticipates providing an initial response or production by December 31, 2025, citing the breadth of the request, the involvement of multiple departments and outside professionals, the need for legal and privilege review, and holiday related staffing limitations and office closures.

I do not agree to, and do not consent to, the requested three week extension. I expressly preserve all rights under N.J.S.A. 47:1A-5(i) and do not waive the seven business day requirement in any respect.

N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1 declares as a matter of public policy that government records shall be readily accessible for inspection, copying, or examination by the citizens of this State, with any limitations on the right of access construed in favor of the public’s right of access. The statute further provides that public agencies have a responsibility and an obligation to safeguard the public’s interest in transparency and that any limitations on access must be narrowly construed. In that context, any claimed need for an extension, and any withholding of financial communications, analyses, or legal records, must be grounded in a specific statutory provision and applied no more broadly, and for no longer, than is actually necessary.

N.J.S.A. 47:1A-5(i) requires the custodian to grant or deny access as soon as possible, but not later than seven business days after receiving the request, and permits a reasonable extension only if the custodian is unable to fulfill the request due to unforeseen circumstances or circumstances that otherwise reasonably necessitate additional time, with notice of the extension provided within seven business days of receipt. Your counsel’s letter cites the breadth of the request, the number of record types and custodians, the need to coordinate searches across multiple departments and outside professionals, the need for legal analysis of draft financial analyses, internal notes, risk assessments, attorney client communications, work product, bonding strategy, and executive session topics, and holiday related staffing limitations and office closures as reasons for a three week extension. None of these circumstances were unforeseen. The scope of the request, the involvement of financial communications among Borough officials and outside professionals, and the existence of December holiday schedules were fully apparent as of November 30, 2025, when the request was made, and by December 4, 2025, when the Borough acknowledged receipt.

OPRA squarely places the burden on the custodian to demonstrate both that additional time is actually necessary and that any delay or denial is authorized by law. A reasonable extension under N.J.S.A. 47:1A-5(i) is permitted only where the custodian is genuinely unable to fulfill the request within seven business days because of such circumstances. The statute does not recognize generalized claims of breadth, ordinary staffing constraints, routine legal review, or the involvement of outside professionals as independent grounds to delay access. Nor does OPRA provide an exception for complex or sensitive financial records where those records are clearly described and already maintained by the agency and its professionals in the regular course of business. For these reasons, I do not agree that a blanket three week extension is reasonable or justified, and I do not consent to one.

In addition, on December 9, 2025 I received multiple, substantially identical extension letters from Borough counsel on separate OPRA requests, each invoking the same generalized grounds of scope, outside professionals, privilege review, and holiday staffing to request three week extensions to December 31, 2025. This pattern confirms that the cited circumstances are not unique or unforeseen with respect to this particular request; rather, they are general conditions the Borough anticipated or should have anticipated when it accepted and acknowledged these OPRA requests. Serial extension letters repeating the same generalized justifications across multiple requests do not transform foreseeable workload and scheduling issues into unforeseen circumstances under N.J.S.A. 47:1A-5(i), nor do they convert a discretionary, fact specific extension into an open ended mechanism to delay multiple requests to a common future date.

I also note that the Borough acknowledged receipt of this request on December 4, 2025, and counsel’s extension letter is dated December 9, 2025. By waiting until near the end of the statutory response window to announce a broad three week extension, and by issuing multiple similar extension letters on the same date for other requests, the Borough has effectively deprived me of any meaningful opportunity to discuss and consider a tailored, request specific, staged approach while preserving my rights under the seven business day rule. To the extent the Borough is suggesting that compliance would substantially disrupt operations, N.J.S.A. 47:1A-5(g) requires the custodian to attempt to reach a reasonable solution with the requestor that accommodates the interests of the requestor and the public agency. My original request expressly set out anti delay and anti extension protections, including that delays based on staffing, workload, interdepartmental routing, or waiting for outside departments or professionals are not valid reasons to withhold responsive records under OPRA, and that any extension request must include specific factual justification, a statutory basis, and a firm date certain. A unilateral three week extension grounded in foreseeable, generalized workload and scheduling considerations, repeated across multiple requests, does not satisfy those standards.

For these reasons, I expressly decline to agree to the three week extension. I do not consent to any further extensions on this request. I consider my rights under N.J.S.A. 47:1A-5(i) fully preserved and do not agree to any waiver or relaxation of the seven business day requirement. To the extent the Borough does not provide access to the requested records, or a written denial citing specific exemptions, within OPRA’s statutory timeframe, I will treat that non compliance as a denial for purposes of my rights under OPRA, including my rights under N.J.S.A. 47:1A-6, and any available administrative or judicial review. For the avoidance of doubt, I will accept records whenever they are produced, but I do not agree that late or staggered production, or additional extension letters, cure non compliance with the statutory timing requirements or restart the seven business day clock.

Even if you continue to contend that additional time is needed for certain categories of records, N.J.S.A. 47:1A-5(i) still requires that access be provided as soon as possible, not merely by the end of an asserted extended period. OPRA does not authorize withholding records that are already identified, collected, or readily accessible while the Borough continues to locate or review other records. My original request specifically provides that any records currently available must be provided immediately and that OPRA prohibits withholding available records while awaiting others.

Moreover, N.J.S.A. 47:1A-5(i) does not permit a custodian to withhold records that are already identified, collected, or readily accessible in order to wait for additional searches, outside professionals, or extended legal review. The statute requires that access be provided as soon as possible, which imposes an affirmative obligation on the Borough to begin producing records on a rolling basis as they become available. In this case, it is clear that certain categories of responsive records are already maintained in electronic form in Borough systems and could have been produced within the original seven business day period, including existing spreadsheets, models, presentations, and correspondence stored in Borough email and shared drives. The decision to seek a blanket three week extension instead of promptly releasing those readily available records is inconsistent with the as soon as possible requirement in N.J.S.A. 47:1A-5(i). I therefore demand that production commence immediately for all such readily accessible records, and that the Borough not delay or withhold those records while it continues to search for or review additional materials.

Accordingly, I request that you immediately produce all responsive records that are presently available and can be disclosed without extensive additional effort, including at a minimum: any existing spreadsheets, calculations, worksheets, financial models, and projections relating to Bond Ordinances 25-18 and 25-19; any internal or external financial risk or red flag reports regarding debt limits, tax impact risks, or increased debt load; any communications already compiled or easily retrievable between Borough officials and financial professionals, including the Auditor, Bond Counsel, financial advisors, rating agencies, and consultants, concerning debt, bonding, tax levy impact, and financial stability; and any presentations, charts, or explanatory documents regarding the Borough’s debt, tax impact, or bonding strategy that have already been prepared for the governing body or the public. Those categories of records are plainly already in the Borough’s possession and capable of prompt electronic production; they must be produced now, and may not be withheld simply because the Borough has chosen to delay or bundle production while it continues separate searches or legal review.

Nothing in OPRA authorizes blanket withholding of entire communications, analyses, or spreadsheets when non exempt content can reasonably be segregated. To the extent you contend that specific portions of communications or financial analyses are protected, for example by attorney client privilege, work product, or executive session confidentiality, OPRA requires that you redact only those specific portions while releasing all reasonably segregable non exempt information.

Your counsel’s letter emphasizes that many records may implicate attorney client privilege, work product, litigation strategy, personnel confidentiality, or executive session protections under the Open Public Meetings Act, particularly in connection with bonding strategy, risk assessments, and internal notes. OPRA requires that any denials or redactions be narrowly tailored and that the specific statutory exemption or exemptions be identified for each record or category of record, while releasing all non exempt portions. N.J.S.A. 47:1A-5(g) and 47:1A-5(i) also require that when you deny access, in whole or in part, you must state the specific legal basis and factual reasons for the denial. My request explicitly demanded a Government Records Council compliant redaction index with specific statutory citations for each redaction or withholding. General references to privilege, work product, risk, confidentiality, executive session, or sensitive financial information without record by record explanation will not satisfy these requirements.

To avoid any misunderstanding, I am not requesting that the Borough create a new document, log, or index that does not already exist. However, N.J.S.A. 47:1A-5(g) and 47:1A-5(i) require that, when access is denied in whole or in part, the custodian identify the records being withheld, state the specific statutory basis for non disclosure, and set forth the reasons for the denial. In the context of the categories listed in my request, including internal financial communications, records related to Bond Ordinances 25-18 and 25-19, communications with financial professionals, risk or red flag reports, public messaging records, financial analyses, financial disputes, legal communications involving financial matters, and drafts and internal notes, compliance with these provisions necessarily requires that your written OPRA response make clear, for each category, whether responsive records exist, whether they are being produced in whole, produced in part, or withheld, and, if withheld in any respect, the specific statutory basis and factual reasons for non disclosure. This is not a request to create a new record, but a request that your written OPRA determination comply with the level of specificity required by N.J.S.A. 47:1A-5(g) and 47:1A-5(i) and with my original demand for a Government Records Council compliant explanation of any redactions or withholdings.

For any category in my request for which you determine that no responsive records exist or are maintained, OPRA requires a certification of non existence under N.J.S.A. 47:1A-5(g). Such certifications must identify the offices, locations, and systems searched so that the completeness of the search can be understood. This requirement applies especially to records held by outside attorneys, cannabis counsel, bond counsel, financial advisors, auditors, or other contracted professionals, which I specifically identified as government records that must be retrieved and produced when they are made, maintained, or kept on file in the course of Borough business.

I also reiterate that records made, maintained, or kept on file for the Borough by outside attorneys, bond counsel, redevelopment counsel, cannabis counsel, auditors, financial advisors, and other consultants in the course of performing official work for the Borough are government records within the meaning of N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1.1. The fact that such records may physically reside with outside professionals does not remove them from OPRA. For each category in my request that implicates outside professionals, the Borough must retrieve responsive records from those professionals in the same manner as it retrieves records from internal departments and then either produce them, redact them with specific statutory justification, or certify their non existence.

My request also invoked the requirements for native format production and metadata, including that all electronic records be produced in their native formats, such as MSG, EML, PST, XLSX, CSV, ICS, DOCX, and EXIF intact images, and that metadata, including creation and modification dates, authors, file paths, email headers, and version history, be included. Please confirm that financial spreadsheets, models, emails, memoranda, risk reports, attorney communications, and other electronic records responsive to this request will be produced in their native formats with associated metadata, and that native records will not be printed, scanned, or otherwise converted in ways that strip metadata where native files are maintained.

Your counsel’s letter invites me to narrow your request to help expedite processing. At this time, I decline to narrow or limit the request. It already contains discrete, clearly defined categories tied to financial decision making and bonding, a specific date range, January 1, 2024 to the present, and explicit instructions about formats, metadata, and redactions. However, consistent with N.J.S.A. 47:1A-5(g), I am willing to consider good faith, non prejudicial staging of production that prioritizes records that are easiest to release promptly, such as already prepared spreadsheets, existing presentations, and previously shared financial analyses, followed by more complex materials. Any such staging must begin immediately and may not be used to postpone the release of records that are already available.

Finally, I remind you that under N.J.S.A. 47:1A-6, in any proceeding challenging a denial of access, the public agency shall have the burden of proving that the denial of access is authorized by law. Your handling of this request, including the timing of your response, the scope of your searches, the retrieval of records from outside professionals, the application of exemptions, and any redactions, will be evaluated under that burden. I therefore request that any continued delay, denial, or redaction be fully documented with specific statutory citations and concrete factual reasons so that the basis for your determinations can be clearly understood and, if necessary, reviewed.

Because the December 9, 2025 correspondence was issued by outside counsel rather than directly by you as the statutory Records Custodian, I respectfully request written confirmation from you that the extension request and all positions stated in counsel’s letter are your determinations as custodian, that you have personally directed the search for and review of all financial communications, analyses, spreadsheets, bonding related records, and related legal communications responsive to my request, and that all searches, productions, redactions, exemptions, and timing decisions will be made under your authority and in full compliance with N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1 et seq.

Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. I look forward to the immediate production of all readily available responsive records, clear and specific written explanations for any withholdings, rolling production as additional records are reviewed, and full compliance with the timing, access, and justification requirements of N.J.S.A. 47:1A-5(i), N.J.S.A. 47:1A-5(g), and N.J.S.A. 47:1A-6.

Sincerely,

John Certo

Dear Records Custodian Karen Wynne,

This is a records preservation notice issued pursuant to N.J.S.A. 47:1A-9 and the common law right of access. Please preserve, maintain, and not destroy, delete, alter, overwrite, conceal, or modify any records responsive to this OPRA request, as well as any records responsive to all OPRA requests I have previously submitted to the Borough of Matawan, while each request is pending and until each is fully and finally resolved. This preservation obligation applies immediately upon receipt of this notice.

This duty applies regardless of routine or automated deletion policies, email retention limits, backup overwrites, document management schedules, device replacement, or any other internal records management practice.

This preservation obligation applies Borough-wide and includes records maintained by any department, office, official, employee, contractor, or agent acting for or on behalf of the Borough.

This preservation obligation applies to all formats and locations where responsive records may reasonably be maintained, including emails, attachments, drafts, internal notes or memoranda, logs, tracking records, databases, shared drives, cloud storage, third party systems used by or for the Borough, metadata, and system generated records maintained in the ordinary course of business.

This notice is issued by me solely in my capacity as a private New Jersey resident exercising statutory and constitutional rights under the New Jersey Constitution, the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, the Open Public Records Act, and the common law right of access. No adverse action, retaliation, obstruction, or discriminatory treatment may lawfully result from the exercise of these rights.

If any responsive record is later asserted not to exist, please provide the written certification of non existence required by N.J.S.A. 47:1A-5(g), certifying that a reasonable search was conducted across all systems and departments where responsive records are ordinarily maintained.

This preservation notice does not modify, restart, or toll any statutory response deadlines under OPRA and is issued solely to ensure compliance with existing legal obligations.

This obligation continues through any administrative review or appeal related to these OPRA requests.

Thank you.

John Certo