Dear Cumberland County,

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. At a recent Special Meeting by the Commissioners of Cumberland County, they had vetoed the minutes of the June 26th meeting of the Cumberland County Improvement Authority to invalidate the vote to renew the contract of the Authority's Executive Director, Jerry Velazquez. One Commissioner noted it was due to a "substantial" increase in salary, while another Commissioner noted it was "based upon a resident's request." Coincidentally, Doug Long is a resident of Cumberland County, has recently switched his role to play for the Republicans, and has essentially become Mike Testa, Jr.'s lapdog. Doug Long made it a personal mission that he would destroy Jerry Velazquez's career and is now working towards fulfilling that goal by and through the Republicans while he hides in the dark. If Jerry is replaced though, Doug will reappear folks and will once again sink his teeth into taking as much money from the County as he can. If you recall, a broadband project was underway at the Cumberland County Utilities Authority at the hands of Doug Long, but luckily failed as it was a faulty project that only benefitted Doug's pocket, not the County. Without Jerry's strong leadership at the Authority in protecting the integrity of this project and the financial terms for the taxpayers, that same reckless mess that nearly prevailed at the CCUA will manifest again at the Authority.

Records requested:

1. Text Messages and/or email communications received by the County Commissioners from Douglas Long at (856) 371-2810, or [email address] to each County Commissioner's county and/or personal email account, as well as each County Commissioner's county and/or personal cell phone, from the time period of August 1, 2023 through the present containing the following terms: "Jerry" "Velazquez" "Cumberland County Improvement Authority" "CCIA" "Authority" "Fire" "Terminate" "Fuck Him" "Veto" "Non-Renew" "Salary" "Democrat" "Republican" "Testa" "Get Him Out" "Broadband" "Consult" "Laramie" "Make Up Reasons" "Lie About Reasons" "Replace" "Replace Jerry" "Get Rid of Jerry" "Get Rid Of" "Arms length" "Arms Length Transaction".

2. Text Messages and/or email communications sent by any of the County Commissioner's county and/or personal email accounts, as well as each County Commissioner's county and/or personal cell phones, regardless of recipient to which such communications were directed to, from the time period of August 1, 2023 through the present containing the following terms: "Jerry" "Velazquez" "Cumberland County Improvement Authority" "CCIA" "Authority" "Fire" "Terminate" "Veto" "Non-Renew" "Salary" "Democrat" "Republican" "Testa" "Get Him Out" "Broadband" "Consult" "Laramie" "Replace Jerry" "Get Rid of Jerry" "Get Rid Of" "Arms length" "Arms Length Transaction".

3. Email Logs from the official county email accounts of each County Commissioner for the time period of August 1, 2023 to the present.

Yours faithfully,

Stop Corruption

Dear Cumberland County NJ Public Records,

I am responding to your various reasons setting forth a basis of an improper denial of access. Please refer to my responses below as follows:

County Response 1: "We are in receipt of your OPRA request for text message and emails of the County Commissioners, including their personal emails and cell phones. The County has no access to the Commissioners’ personal devices and, therefore, will have no documents responsive to that portion of your request."

My Response 1: Please note that this representation is false. Should official County business be conducted on personal devices, such communications are subject to disclosure through OPRA. While you are correct that the County cannot gain direct access to personal devices, you are incorrect to solely deny it based upon this, as it would be the individual in possession of the personal device that would have to conduct and certify to such search. See Lipsky v. NJ Assn of Health Plans. The Appellate Division emphasized that public employees have strong privacy interests in their phones’ contents, so where there’s an OPRA request (or discovery demand) for records from employees’ phones, it is improper for the agency to search the device for responsive records. Instead, to protect the privacy interests at stake, the agency must ask employees to conduct the search of their devices for responsive records. Thus, I reiterate my request based upon these grounds.

County Response 2: "In addition, your request is overbroad and burdensome. See MAG Entm’t, LLC v. Div. of Alcoholic Beverage Control, 375 N.J. Super. 534 (App. Div. 2005), Bent v. Stafford Police Dep’t, 381 N.J. Super. 30 (App. Div. 2005), N.J. Builders Ass’n v. N.J. Council on Affordable Hous., 390 N.J. Super. 166 (App. Div. 2007), and Schuler v. Borough of Bloomsbury, GRC Complaint No. 2007-151 (February 2009)."

My Response 2: My requests identified a specific type of record (emails and text messages), parties to the correspondence (the Commissioners of the County which I hope YOU would know their names and Douglas Long along with his cell phone and email), dates (August 1, 2023 to the present) and subject matter (see various search terms in my original request). For these reasons, I again reiterate my request. To the extent my second request of my original OPRA was vague as it did not include a recipient, please disregard. However, request #1 pertaining to Doug Long meets the criteria and should proceed.

County Response 3: "Additionally, the GRC sets forth criteria for a proper OPRA request seeking communications, including e-mails, text messages and other forms of correspondence. See Elcavage v. West Milford Twp. (Passaic), GRC Complaint No. 2009-07 (April 2010); Armenti v. Robbinsville Bd. of Educ. (Mercer), GRC Complaint No. 2009-154 (Interim Order dated May 24, 2011)."

My Response 3: See response to #2 above, taken directly from the GRC's Frequently asked questions. Thus, I reiterate my request again.

County Response 4: "In addition, your request does not set forth the specific names of the persons and the email addresses which you wish to have searched."

My Response 4: I wish to have searched the County of Cumberland Commissioner's email addresses, as I stated before. While you certainly know the names , I will go ahead and add them here: Douglas A. Albrecht, Victoria Groetsch-Lods, Art Marchand, Antonio Romero, James Sauro, Joseph V. Sileo, and, Sandra Taylor. Your website lacks transparency in providing email addresses, but I imagine you have them.

County Response 5: "Also, based on the number of email addresses to be search and on the search terms listed in your request I anticipate a special service charge would be assessed."

My Response 5: No problem, please send me an estimate of special service charges to be assessed.

Yours sincerely,

Stop Corruption