Dear Mr. Bailey:
The Borough of Spotswood (“Borough”) records custodian received your Open
Public Records
Act (“OPRA”) request on May 15, 2026. The seven business day deadline to
respond to your
request is May 27, 2026. As such, the Borough is timely responding to your
request in
accordance with New Jersey law.
Your OPRA request seeks the following records:
1. All audit engagement letters between the Borough of
Spotswood and any outside auditor, accounting firm, or
auditing professional from January 1, 2020 through present.
2. All correspondence, including emails, letters, memoranda, and
attachments, between the Borough of Spotswood and any
outside auditor, accounting firm, or auditing professional
concerning: municipal audits, delayed audits, corrective
actions, deficiencies, findings, recommendations, compliance
issues, from January 1, 2020 through present.
3. All communications, including emails, letters, memoranda, and
attachments, between the Borough of Spotswood and the New
Jersey Division of Local Government Services (DLGS)
concerning:
a. municipal audits,
b. delayed audits,
c. fiscal compliance,
d. corrective action plans,
e. Local Finance Notices,
f. deficiencies, state oversight, from January 1, 2020
through present.

4. All corrective action plans, draft corrective action plans,
responses to audit findings, and related supporting documents
from January 1, 2020 through present.
5. All emails sent or received by the Chief Financial Officer
(CFO), Acting CFO, or Interim CFO concerning:
a. delayed audits,
b. overdue audits,
c. audit deficiencies,
d. corrective action plans,
e. auditor communications,
f. DLGS communications, from January 1, 2020
through present..

Please be advised that OPRA allows the records custodian to seek
extensions of time
pursuant to N.J.S.A. 47:1A-5i. Due to the voluminous nature of your
request and the upcoming
holiday, the Borough requires an additional two weeks (until June 10,
2026) to compile, review,
and produce the potentially responsive records in accordance with New
Jersey law. The Borough
also reserves the right to obtain an additional extension of time if
necessary. See Scheeler v. New
Jersey Department of Educ., GRC Complaint No. 2014-123 (2016).
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation.
Very truly yours,
Anthony Ventrone
Assistant  Borough Clerk

Dear Mr. Bailey:
The Borough of Spotswood (“Borough”) records custodian received your Open
Public
Records Act (“OPRA”) request on May 15, 2026. On May 26, 2026, the Borough
obtained an
extension of the deadline to respond to your request until June 10, 2026.
As such, the Borough is
timely responding to your request in accordance with New Jersey Law.
Your OPRA request seeks the following records:
1. All audit engagement letters between the Borough of
Spotswood and any outside auditor, accounting firm, or
auditing professional from January 1, 2020 through present.
2. All correspondence, including emails, letters, memoranda, and
attachments, between the Borough of Spotswood and any
outside auditor, accounting firm, or auditing professional
concerning: municipal audits, delayed audits, corrective
actions, deficiencies, findings, recommendations, compliance
issues, from January 1, 2020 through present.

3. All communications, including emails, letters, memoranda, and
attachments, between the Borough of Spotswood and the New
Jersey Division of Local Government Services (DLGS)
concerning:
a. municipal audits,
b. delayed audits,
c. fiscal compliance,
d. corrective action plans,
e. Local Finance Notices,
f. deficiencies,
g. state oversight, from January 1, 2020 through present.
4. All corrective action plans, draft corrective action plans,
responses to audit findings, and related supporting documents
from January 1, 2020 through present.
5. All emails sent or received by the Chief Financial Officer
(CFO), Acting CFO, or Interim CFO concerning:
a. delayed audits,
b. overdue audits,
c. audit deficiencies,
d. corrective action plans,
e. auditor communications, DLGS communications, from January
1, 2020 through present.

With respect to items 1-3 and 5 (and to the extent that item 4 purportedly
seeks any
communications), please be advised that your request is invalid pursuant
to N.J.S.A. 47:1A-5(g)
(providing that a records custodian shall not be required to search for
responsive
communications if the request fails to identify the specific accounts, a
specific subject matter, and
a reasonable time period for the search). Here, your requests for “all
audit engagement letters,”
“all correspondence,” “all communications” and “all emails” do not
constitute specific
requests for the Borough to conduct a good-faith search. Moreover, items
1-3 of your requests do
not identify any particular Borough representatives for the Borough to
conduct a search of
specific accounts (and item 5 purports to require the Borough’s records
custodian to conduct
research in order to identify who served as CFO, Acting CFO, or Interim
CFO during a six-year
time period, which is beyond the legal obligations of a records custodian
under OPRA). Lastly,
as each of these items purportedly seek over six years’ worth of
communications, emails, and
records, your request is not confined to a reasonable time period within
the meaning of the
statute. As such, the Borough is not legally obligated to search for
and/or produce any
potentially responsive communications for items 1-3 and 5 (and item 4 to
the extent that it
purportedly seeks communications) based upon the parameters of your
request.
We further note in the event that item 1 may potentially be construed as
seeking any
specifically identifiable records, any potentially responsive
communications would undoubtedly
be exempt from public access as “information which is a communication
between a public
agency and its insurance carrier, administrative service organization or
risk management office”

pursuant to N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1.1. Communications between Borough
representatives and the
Borough’s auditors and accountants are clearly encompassed by the “risk
management office”
language, and are thus shielded from public access accordingly.
With respect to Item 4, please be advised that your request is invalid as
overly broad, as it
fails to identify with reasonable clarity any particular records sought.
OPRA operates to make
identifiable government records “readily accessible for inspection,
copying, or examination.”
N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1. New Jersey courts have consistently held that OPRA does
not countenance
open-ended searches of an agency’s files. MAG Entm’t, LLC v. Div. of ABC,
375 N.J. Super. 534,
549 (App. Div. 2005); New Jersey Builders Ass’n v. New Jersey Council on
Affordable Housing,
390 N.J. Super. 166 (App. Div.), cert. denied, 190 N.J. 394 (2007).
Consequently, a proper
request under OPRA “must identify with reasonable clarity those documents
that are desired,
and a party cannot satisfy this requirement by simply requesting all of an
agency’s documents.”
See e.g., Spectraserv, Inc. v. Middlesex Cty. Utilities Auth., 416 N.J.
Super. 565, 576 (App. Div.
2010); Bent v. Twp. of Stafford Police Dep’t, 381 N.J. Super. 30, 37 (App.
Div. 2005). OPRA
requests may not be a broad generic description of documents that require
the custodian to
search the agency’s files and “analyze, compile, and collate” the
requested information. Id.; see
also Lagerkvist v. Office of Governor of State, 443 N.J. Super. 230, 237
(App. Div. 2015)
(holding that OPRA does not convert a custodian into a researcher, which
would have been the
effect of the request). Item 4 purportedly seeks, “[a]ll corrective action
plans, draft corrective
action plans, responses to audit findings, and related supporting
documents” over a six-year
period and purports to require the Borough’s records custodian to conduct
research in order to
determine which materials may potentially be responsive, which is beyond
the legal obligations
of a records custodian under OPRA. See Parreott v. Asbury Park School
District, GRC
Complaint Nos. 2016-20 & 2016-39 (Sept. 2017) (holding that the
portion of the request seeking
“all relevant documents” was invalid because it sought a class of various
records and would
have required the records custodian to conduct research in order to locate
responsive records);
see also Burke v. Ocean Cty., 2013 WL 6169154 (App. Div. 2013) (holding
that an OPRA request
is not the equivalent of lawsuit discovery). Item 4 is plainly more akin
to a litigation discovery
demand than a request for specifically identifiable records as OPRA
requires. Accordingly, item
4 is invalid as it fails to comport with OPRA’s specificity requirements.
Your request is now deemed answered and closed.
Very truly yours,

Anthony Ventrone
Assistant Borough Clerk

show quoted sections