Good afternoon,

 

Please accept this email on behalf of Sussex County.

 

Upon review the County has no record of this OPRA request.

 

Thank you,

 

Serena DiMaso, Esq

 

Florio, Perrucci, Steinhardt, Cappelli & Tipton LLC

91 Larry Holmes Dr.

Easton, PA 18042

 

Cell: 848.893.6669

 

[1][email address] / [2]www.floriolaw.com

Licensed in NYS

 

 

 

 

STATEMENT OF CONFIDENTIALITY: The information contained in this
transmission including any attached documentation is privileged and
confidential. It is intended only for the use of the individual or entity
named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient,
you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copy of
this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
communication in error, please notify Florio Perrucci Steinhardt Cappelli
& Tipton LLC immediately by replying to this e-mail. Please delete all
copies of this message and any attachments immediately.

 

From: Sussex Watch Network (SWN)
<[OPRA #83024 email]>
Sent: Thursday, November 6, 2025 9:19 AM
To: Serena DiMaso <[Sussex County request email]>
Subject: Internal review of OPRA request - County Records Concerning
Complaints, Investigations, and Intergovernmental Insurance Coordination

 

 

Dear Sussex County,

 

This correspondence serves as a courteous follow-up regarding the Open
Public Records Act (OPRA) request previously submitted through the
OPRAmachine platform. Please confirm whether the request has been received
and advise on its current processing status or estimated completion date
pursuant to N.J.S.A. 47:1A-5(i).

 

If the request has been denied in whole or in part, kindly provide the
specific legal basis for such denial in accordance with N.J.S.A. 47:1A-6,
including the name and title of the custodian responsible for the
decision.

 

We respectfully request acknowledgment of this follow-up and any updates
regarding fulfillment or required clarifications.

 

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

 

Yours faithfully,

Sussex Watch Network (SWN)

 

 

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Please use this UNIQUE email address for all replies to this request and
no other:

[3][OPRA #83024 email]

 

Disclaimer: This message and any reply that you make will be published on
the internet. Our privacy and copyright policies:

[4]https://opramachine.com/help/officers

 

View this OPRA request & responses online:

[5]https://opramachine.com/request/county_r...

 

 

Please note that in some cases publication of requests and responses will
be delayed.

 

If you find this service useful as an OPRA custodian, please ask your web
manager to link to us from your organisation's website.

show quoted sections

Good morning,

 

Please accept this email on behalf of Sussex County,

The County is in receipt of your OPRA request for the following:

 

1. Inter-Governmental and Insurance Correspondence

All records, including emails, memoranda, correspondence, meeting minutes,
handwritten or typed notes, reports, and attachments, exchanged between
any County official or employee (including but not limited to County
Administrator Ron Tappan, Commissioners Carney, Space, DeGroot, Hayden,
Henderson, Fantasia, and Yardley, or their staff) and any other
governmental or quasi-governmental entity (including the Town of Newton or
Thomas S. Russo, the Sussex County Prosecutor’s Office, the Sussex County
Sheriff’s Office, Sussex County Community College and its Board of
Trustees, the Statewide Insurance Fund [SIF], the School Alliance
Insurance Fund [SAIF], and Highland Claim Services) regarding Lee Coffey,
“Coffey v. SCCC,” “Coffey v. Newton,” or any claims, correspondence, or
litigation arising from the same facts as outlined in Coffey v. Sussex
County Community College et al. Case No. 2:25-cv-01264.

Request denied, Please see Elcavage v. West Milford Twp. (Passaic), GRC
Complaint No. 2009-07 (April 2010): The Council held that “an OPRA request
for an e-mail or e-mails shall therefore focus upon the following four (4)
characteristics: • Content and/or subject • Specific date or range of
dates • Sender • Recipient

 

 

2. College Board Appointments and County Oversight

All documents, meeting minutes, resolutions, emails, and reports
concerning the appointment, removal, or replacement of Sussex County
Community College Board of Trustees members from January 1, 2022 to
present, including applications, resumes, interview records, or
correspondence with any candidate for Board appointment or reappointment.

Denied as too broad as any and all. Please see; Bent v. Stafford Police
Dep’t, 381 N.J. Super. 30 (App. Div. 2005): The Court affirmed the GRC’s
decision (GRC Complaint No. 2004-78) that the complainant’s request was
broad and unclear (“any and all”). The Council ruled that the information
sought did not amount to an identifiable government record. And  MAG
Entm’t, LLC v. Div. of Alcohol Beverage Control, 375 N.J. Super. 534 (App.
Div. 2005): The Court held that “[w]hile OPRA provides an alternative
means of access to government documents not otherwise exempted from its
reach, it is not intended as a research tool litigants may use to force
government officials to identify and siphon useful information. Rather,
OPRA simply operates to make identifiable government records ‘readily
accessible for inspection, copying, or examination.’ N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1.”
(emphasis added). The Court further held that “[u]nder OPRA, agencies are
required to disclose only ‘identifiable’ government records not otherwise
exempt . . . In short, OPRA does not countenance open-ended searches of an
agency's files.” Id. at 549 (emphasis added).

 

3. County Response to Jon Connolly Allegations

All records reflecting any investigation, inquiry, or official response by
Sussex County or its representatives to allegations made by Lee Coffey or
by any other individuals regarding Sussex County Community College
officials, including but not limited to former President Jon Connolly.
This includes directives, memoranda, or communications to County staff or
other agencies, as well as all communications, reports, or notes
referencing complaints, grievances, or allegations by or involving SCCC
personnel such as Chief Operating Officer James Gaddy, Human Resources
Coordinator Marianne Sharpe, staff member Jason Boehm, or any other SCCC
administrator or employee who raised concerns or made statements
concerning Connolly’s conduct or the institutional environment. The scope
covers the period from January 1, 2023 through the present. Also include
any mp3 or other audio file submitted in reference to any complaint
involving Jon Connolly. Also include any correspondence, emails, or
meeting notes referencing or containing the phrase “DEAD IN THE WATER,” or
any related internal communications concerning that statement.

Request denied, Please see Elcavage v. West Milford Twp. (Passaic), GRC
Complaint No. 2009-07 (April 2010): The Council held that “an OPRA request
for an e-mail or e-mails shall therefore focus upon the following four (4)
characteristics: • Content and/or subject • Specific date or range of
dates • Sender • Recipient

Also denied as too broad as any and all. Please see; Bent v. Stafford
Police Dep’t, 381 N.J. Super. 30 (App. Div. 2005): The Court affirmed the
GRC’s decision (GRC Complaint No. 2004-78) that the complainant’s request
was broad and unclear (“any and all”). The Council ruled that the
information sought did not amount to an identifiable government record.
And  MAG Entm’t, LLC v. Div. of Alcohol Beverage Control, 375 N.J. Super.
534 (App. Div. 2005): The Court held that “[w]hile OPRA provides an
alternative means of access to government documents not otherwise exempted
from its reach, it is not intended as a research tool litigants may use to
force government officials to identify and siphon useful information.
Rather, OPRA simply operates to make identifiable government records
‘readily accessible for inspection, copying, or examination.’ N.J.S.A.
47:1A-1.” (emphasis added). The Court further held that “[u]nder OPRA,
agencies are required to disclose only ‘identifiable’ government records
not otherwise exempt . . . In short, OPRA does not countenance open-ended
searches of an agency's files.” Id. at 549 (emphasis added).

 

 

4. Board Meetings and Resolutions

All minutes, transcripts, agenda packets, or recordings (including public
and closed sessions) of Board of County Commissioner meetings from January
1, 2023 through the present where Sussex County Community College, Coffey,
or related matters were discussed. Include records pertaining to the SCCC
bond ordinance adopted on March 26, 2025 and the participation of any
Commissioner in SCCC Board of Trustee meetings within three (3) months
before or after that date.

This information can be found at [1]Meeting Schedules - Sussex County
otherwise denied as too broad. Please see; Bent v. Stafford Police Dep’t,
381 N.J. Super. 30 (App. Div. 2005): The Court affirmed the GRC’s decision
(GRC Complaint No. 2004-78) that the complainant’s request was broad and
unclear (“any and all”). The Council ruled that the information sought did
not amount to an identifiable government record. And  MAG Entm’t, LLC v.
Div. of Alcohol Beverage Control, 375 N.J. Super. 534 (App. Div. 2005):
The Court held that “[w]hile OPRA provides an alternative means of access
to government documents not otherwise exempted from its reach, it is not
intended as a research tool litigants may use to force government
officials to identify and siphon useful information. Rather, OPRA simply
operates to make identifiable government records ‘readily accessible for
inspection, copying, or examination.’ N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1.” (emphasis added).
The Court further held that “[u]nder OPRA, agencies are required to
disclose only ‘identifiable’ government records not otherwise exempt . . .
In short, OPRA does not countenance open-ended searches of an agency's
files.” Id. at 549 (emphasis added).

 

 

5. Policies and Directives

All County-issued policies, procedures, or training materials concerning:

(a) inter-governmental cooperation or coordination between counties,
municipalities, and colleges;

(b) insurance claims handling or indemnification practices involving SIF
or SAIF;

(c) conflict-of-interest protocols for County officials serving as
insurance fund commissioners or trustees; and

(d) procedures for responding to or investigating civil-rights complaints
or retaliation allegations against County entities or employees.

Denied as too broad as any and all. Please see; Bent v. Stafford Police
Dep’t, 381 N.J. Super. 30 (App. Div. 2005): The Court affirmed the GRC’s
decision (GRC Complaint No. 2004-78) that the complainant’s request was
broad and unclear (“any and all”). The Council ruled that the information
sought did not amount to an identifiable government record. And  MAG
Entm’t, LLC v. Div. of Alcohol Beverage Control, 375 N.J. Super. 534 (App.
Div. 2005): The Court held that “[w]hile OPRA provides an alternative
means of access to government documents not otherwise exempted from its
reach, it is not intended as a research tool litigants may use to force
government officials to identify and siphon useful information. Rather,
OPRA simply operates to make identifiable government records ‘readily
accessible for inspection, copying, or examination.’ N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1.”
(emphasis added). The Court further held that “[u]nder OPRA, agencies are
required to disclose only ‘identifiable’ government records not otherwise
exempt . . . In short, OPRA does not countenance open-ended searches of an
agency's files.” Id. at 549 (emphasis added).

 

Moreover, as of September 3, 2024, the OPRA laws were amended. The new
amendments prohibit a party to a legal proceeding from filing an OPRA
request, if the records sought are the subject of a court order or pending
discovery request. It is our good faith belief that this request is in
fact being made by a party to a current legal proceeding. Therefore, each
of the aforementioned requests, in addition to any and every other request
not otherwise specifically reflected herein, is denied under N.J.S.A.
47:1A-1.1

 

 

 

Serena DiMaso, Esq

 

Florio, Perrucci, Steinhardt, Cappelli & Tipton LLC

91 Larry Holmes Dr.

Easton, PA 18042

 

Cell: 848.893.6669

 

[2][email address] / [3]www.floriolaw.com

Licensed in NYS

 

 

 

 

STATEMENT OF CONFIDENTIALITY: The information contained in this
transmission including any attached documentation is privileged and
confidential. It is intended only for the use of the individual or entity
named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient,
you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copy of
this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
communication in error, please notify Florio Perrucci Steinhardt Cappelli
& Tipton LLC immediately by replying to this e-mail. Please delete all
copies of this message and any attachments immediately.

 

From: Sussex Watch Network (SWN)
<[OPRA #83024 email]>
Sent: Monday, November 10, 2025 1:55 PM
To: Serena DiMaso <[Sussex County request email]>
Subject: Internal review of OPRA request - County Records Concerning
Complaints, Investigations, and Intergovernmental Insurance Coordination

 

 

Dear Serena DiMaso,

 

Here is the full request again for your records:

 

"November 3, 2025

 

County Administrator’s Office

Sussex County Board of County Commissioners

1 Spring Street, First Floor

Newton, NJ 07860

 

Re: Open Public Records Act Request – County Records Concerning
Complaints, Investigations, and Intergovernmental Insurance Coordination

 

Dear Records Custodian:

 

Pursuant to the New Jersey Open Public Records Act (“OPRA”), N.J.S.A.
47:1A-1 et seq., and the strong presumption of access reaffirmed in
Burnett v. County of Bergen, 198 N.J. 408 (2009), I hereby demand access
to and copies of the following government records held by the Sussex
County Board of County Commissioners. As the Supreme Court held in Asbury
Park Press v. County of Monmouth, 406 N.J. Super. 1 (App. Div. 2009), any
ambiguity in scope must be resolved in favor of disclosure, and exemptions
must be narrowly construed.

 

1. Inter-Governmental and Insurance Correspondence

All records, including emails, memoranda, correspondence, meeting minutes,
handwritten or typed notes, reports, and attachments, exchanged between
any County official or employee (including but not limited to County
Administrator Ron Tappan, Commissioners Carney, Space, DeGroot, Hayden,
Henderson, Fantasia, and Yardley, or their staff) and any other
governmental or quasi-governmental entity (including the Town of Newton or
Thomas S. Russo, the Sussex County Prosecutor’s Office, the Sussex County
Sheriff’s Office, Sussex County Community College and its Board of
Trustees, the Statewide Insurance Fund [SIF], the School Alliance
Insurance Fund [SAIF], and Highland Claim Services) regarding Lee Coffey,
“Coffey v. SCCC,” “Coffey v. Newton,” or any claims, correspondence, or
litigation arising from the same facts as outlined in Coffey v. Sussex
County Community College et al. Case No. 2:25-cv-01264.

 

2. College Board Appointments and County Oversight

All documents, meeting minutes, resolutions, emails, and reports
concerning the appointment, removal, or replacement of Sussex County
Community College Board of Trustees members from January 1, 2022 to
present, including applications, resumes, interview records, or
correspondence with any candidate for Board appointment or reappointment.

 

3. County Response to Jon Connolly Allegations

All records reflecting any investigation, inquiry, or official response by
Sussex County or its representatives to allegations made by Lee Coffey or
by any other individuals regarding Sussex County Community College
officials, including but not limited to former President Jon Connolly.
This includes directives, memoranda, or communications to County staff or
other agencies, as well as all communications, reports, or notes
referencing complaints, grievances, or allegations by or involving SCCC
personnel such as Chief Operating Officer James Gaddy, Human Resources
Coordinator Marianne Sharpe, staff member Jason Boehm, or any other SCCC
administrator or employee who raised concerns or made statements
concerning Connolly’s conduct or the institutional environment. The scope
covers the period from January 1, 2023 through the present. Also include
any mp3 or other audio file submitted in reference to any complaint
involving Jon Connolly. Also include any correspondence, emails, or
meeting notes referencing or containing the phrase “DEAD IN THE WATER,” or
any related internal communications concerning that statement.

 

4. Board Meetings and Resolutions

All minutes, transcripts, agenda packets, or recordings (including public
and closed sessions) of Board of County Commissioner meetings from January
1, 2023 through the present where Sussex County Community College, Coffey,
or related matters were discussed. Include records pertaining to the SCCC
bond ordinance adopted on March 26, 2025 and the participation of any
Commissioner in SCCC Board of Trustee meetings within three (3) months
before or after that date.

 

5. Policies and Directives

All County-issued policies, procedures, or training materials concerning:

(a) inter-governmental cooperation or coordination between counties,
municipalities, and colleges;

(b) insurance claims handling or indemnification practices involving SIF
or SAIF;

(c) conflict-of-interest protocols for County officials serving as
insurance fund commissioners or trustees; and

(d) procedures for responding to or investigating civil-rights complaints
or retaliation allegations against County entities or employees.

 

Production Requirements and Legal Notice

 

Format: All electronic records shall be produced in native format (e.g.,
.msg/.pst, .xlsx, .docx, .pdf with metadata intact). Flattened or
image-only PDFs are non-compliant under Bent v. Stafford Police Dep’t, 381
N.J. Super. 30 (App. Div. 2005).

 

Redactions: If any record is withheld or redacted, you must provide a
privilege/withholding log identifying the record, author, recipient(s),
date, and specific statutory exemption relied upon, as required by Paff v.
Galloway Twp., 229 N.J. 340 (2017). Blanket or conclusory denials will be
deemed improper.

 

Preservation: You are hereby placed on formal notice to preserve all
potentially responsive emails, devices, cloud accounts, and archives.
Deletion or alteration may constitute spoliation subject to sanctions in
both GRC and judicial proceedings.

 

Timeframe: Pursuant to N.J.S.A. 47:1A-5(i), a complete response is due
within seven (7) business days. Failure to respond shall be deemed a
denial under Mason v. City of Hoboken, 196 N.J. 51 (2008).

 

Partial Disclosure: If any portion is legitimately exempt, produce all
segregable non-exempt material and cite the precise subsection supporting
each withholding.

 

Fees: If any fees are proposed, provide an itemized written estimate in
advance; excessive or unsupported charges will be challenged.

 

Delivery: Please transmit all records electronically via secure download
link or SFTP.

 

This request is made for public-interest and litigation-related purposes
involving the expenditure of taxpayer funds and governance accountability.
It is not for commercial use.

 

Failure to comply fully and in good faith may expose the County to civil
penalties under N.J.S.A. 47:1A-11 for knowing, willful, and unreasonable
denials, and to an award of attorney’s fees and costs to the prevailing
requestor under N.J.S.A. 47:1A-6. All rights are expressly reserved to
pursue relief before the Government Records Council and the Superior
Court.

 

Yours faithfully,

Sussex Watch Network (SWN)"

 

show quoted sections