Correspondence from Ervin Oross, Jr., jmaczuga@jdmplanning.com and riabue@rmsmlaw.com
Dear Jackson Township,
This is a request for public records made under OPRA and the common law right of access. I am not required to fill out an official form. Please acknowledge receipt of this message.
Records requested:
Please provide all correspondence, AND attachments to the correspondence, from Ervin Oross, Jr., [email address] and [email address] to Terrance Wall, Sharon Pinkava, Grace Orner, Helene Schlegel and Jackson Building Department from 2017 to present day in reference to housing and housing rehabilitation.
Wishing you a safe and joyous holiday.
Resident
Dear Resident:
Please accept this as my official response to your OPRA. Attached please
find emails and attachments requested.
Please note: Redactions have been made pursuant to NJSA 47:1A-1.1,
advisory, consultative, deliberative process privilege. NJSA 47:1A-1.1,
attorney client privilege.
Thank you.
Danielle Sinowitz
Clerk I
Jackson Township
95 West Veterans Highway
Jackson, NJ 08527
Tel: 732-928-1200 ext. 1203
Email: [email address]
Dear Danielle Sinowitz,
Please review the redactions you've provided. Redacting crucial information is one thing, but redacting for the sake of redacting can be considered antagonistic. Why would you redact anything in the Rehabco guide book??? It's a booklet used to guide Rehabco and the public has access to it.
Also, the original purpose of this OPRA was to see if the request by Rehabco for changes to their current guidance was addressed. We don't believe EVERY email conversation about it is restricted as you have done.
Yours sincerely,
Resident
Dear "Resident",
Please be advised that this office does not redact "for the sake of
redacting" , nor do we redact "in order to be antagonistic". The
redactions made to the Rehabco guide book were made as the proposed
changes to it were not formally adopted, and as such, the redacted
information is advisory, consultative and deliberative. You were cited
the Statutes for the exemptions in the proper manner. Likewise, the
redactions to the emails were for Attorney-Client privilege.
Hopefully, this explanation clarifies your incorrect assumption that we
responded to your request in an inappropriate manner.
Respectfully yours,
Janice Kisty
Township Clerk/Registrar
Jackson Township
95 W. Veterans Highway
Jackson, NJ 08527
732-928-1200 x1200
fax 732-928-4377
══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
From: Danielle Sinowitz <[email address]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2020 11:44 AM
To: Janice Kisty <[email address]>
Subject: Fw: OPRA Response
Danielle Sinowitz
Clerk I
Jackson Township
95 West Veterans Highway
Jackson, NJ 08527
Tel: 732-928-1200 ext. 1203
Email: [email address]
________________________________________
From: Resident <[OPRA #8814 email]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2020 11:08 AM
To: Danielle Sinowitz
Subject: Re: OPRA Response
Dear Danielle Sinowitz,
Please review the redactions you've provided. Redacting crucial
information is one thing, but redacting for the sake of redacting can be
considered antagonistic. Why would you redact anything in the Rehabco
guide book??? It's a booklet used to guide Rehabco and the public has
access to it.
Also, the original purpose of this OPRA was to see if the request by
Rehabco for changes to their current guidance was addressed. We don't
believe EVERY email conversation about it is restricted as you have done.
Yours sincerely,
Resident