Gina LaPlaca's Unfair Relationships with Subordinates and Controversial Conduct Involving Racial Statements
Dear Ms. Gabriella Siboni,
Under the New Jersey Open Public Records Act (OPRA), N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1 et seq., I am requesting access to and copies of the following public records:
Any communication between Gina LaPlaca, Business Administrator, and David Milmoe, Head of the Department of Public Works (DPW). This request includes text messages, phone calls, and emails sent or received on their personal and work phones (Gina LaPlaca: 917-648-4720 and 609-218-3798; David Milmoe: 908-415-3680 and 732-606-3488) between May 1, 2023, and July 8, 2024.
Verification of GPS tracking for both Ms. LaPlaca's and Mr. Milmoe's work vehicles, including records of their vehicle movements and whether they have left the jurisdiction of Neptune Township during the work day and directly after work hours of 4 pm. It seems as though they met quite often for lunches and "breaks" in the middle of their work day, while this was not a convenience for all Neptune employees. This includes tracking Ms. LaPlaca's use of her vehicle to and from Lumbertown Township where she resides. We hope that it is tracked to ensure she is not using it for her "personal affairs" with her subordinates, which has been an ongoing issue for over a year, especially considering her more than generous salary of over $180,000.
This request is made to ensure transparency and fairness within the township, especially concerning recent events involving inappropriate social media postings by Mr. Milmoe and Ms. LaPlaca's personal relations with this employee. There are concerns that Ms. LaPlaca's personal views and relationship with Mr. Milmoe might influence her professional conduct, potentially leading to matters being "swept under the rug." Additionally, there is interest in confirming that both employees are held accountable for their use of township-provided vehicles, as all other township vehicles are reportedly equipped with GPS trackers.
I hope that this provides more than a "blanket request" as we have provided ample reasoning for our requests. If more is needed for this specific relationship between Ms. LaPlaca and Mr. Milmoe, please advise and we will gladly provide more detailed information seeking the requests.
If there are any fees for searching or copying these records, please inform me of the cost will exceed $50. However, I would also like to request a waiver of fees as the disclosure of the requested information is in the public interest and will contribute significantly to public understanding of government operations and activities.
If any part of my request is denied, please cite each specific exemption you feel justifies the refusal to release the information and notify me of the appeal procedures available under the law.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
John Klein
The Township of Neptune received an Open Public Records Act (OPRA) request
on July 8, 2024. As such, the seven (7) business day deadline to respond
to your request is July 17, 2024
The request was for:
• Any communication between Gina LaPlaca, Business Administrator, and
David Milmoe, Head of the Department of Public Works (DPW). This
request includes text messages, phone calls, and emails sent or
received on their personal and work phones (Gina LaPlaca: 917-648-4720
and 609-218-3798; David Milmoe: 908-415-3680 and 732-606-3488) between
May 1, 2023, and July 8, 2024.
◦ The GRC established criteria deemed necessary under OPRA to
specifically request an email communication in Elcavage v. West
Milford Twp. (Passaic), GRC Complaint No. 2009-07 (April 2010). The
Council determined that to be valid, such requests must contain:
(1) the content and/or subject of the email, (2) the specific date
or range of dates during which the email(s) were transmitted, and
(3) the identity of the sender and/or the recipient thereof. See
Elcavage, GRC 2009-07; Sandoval v. NJ State Parole Bd., GRC
Complaint No. 2006-167 (Interim Order March 28, 2007). The Council
has also applied the criteria set forth in Elcavage, to other forms
of correspondence, such as letters. See Armenti v. Robbinsville Bd.
of Educ. (Mercer), GRC Complaint No. 2009-154 (Interim Order May
24, 2011).
◦ In Verry v. Borough of South Bound Brook (Somerset), GRC Complaint
No. 2009-124 (April 2010), the complainant’s OPRA request sought
all e-mails to or from a particular e-mail account for a specific
time period. The custodian’s counsel responded advising the
complainant that his OPRA request was invalid because it
represented an open-ended search of the Borough’s files. The
Council held that the complainant’s request was invalid under
Elcavage, GRC 2009-07 because it did not include a subject or
content. Id. at 7. Herein, the Complainant’s OPRA request sought
e-mails from all employees for a certain date range. However,
similar to the request at issue in Verry, the request here did not
identify a subject or the content of the e-mails sought. For this
reason, the request did not meet the express criteria necessary to
appropriately request e-mails and is thus invalid. The GRC notes
that the Complainant’s clarified request identified specific
senders/recipients. However, the clarification did not cure the
deficiency of this request because the Complainant did not include
a subject or content.
◦ Communications between Gina and Dave are also likely to contain
personnel information and therefore be exempt under NJSA 47A:1A-10,
although each document cannot be examined to determine
applicability of the exemption due to the vagueness and over
breadth of the request.
• Verification of GPS tracking for both Ms. LaPlaca's and Mr. Milmoe's
work vehicles, including records of their vehicle movements and
whether they have left the jurisdiction of Neptune Township during the
work day and directly after work hours of 4 pm.
◦ This request seeks information or asks questions and does not
identify specific government records. As such, your request is an
invalid OPRA request and is denied. When a request is “complex”
because it fails to specifically identify the documents sought,
then that request is not “encompassed” by OPRA. See New Jersey
Builders Association v. New Jersey Council on Affordable Housing,
390 N.J.Super. 166, 180 (App. Div. 2007). 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. Refer to, Bent v.
Stafford Police Department, 381 N.J.Super. 30, 37 (App. Div.
2005). Custodians are not required to conduct research or create
new records in response to an OPRA request.
◦ The work vehicles assigned to Mr. Milmoe and Ms. LaPlaca do not
have GPS installed in them, therefore there are no responsive
records.
If your request for access to a government record has been denied or
unfilled within the seven (7) business days required by law, you have a
right to challenge the decision by the Township of Neptune to deny access.
At your option, you may either institute a proceeding in the Superior
Court of New Jersey or file a complaint with the Government Records
Council (GRC) by completing the Denial of Access Complaint Form. You may
contact the GRC by toll-free telephone at 866-850-0511, by mail at P.O.
Box 819, Trenton, NJ, 08625, by e-mail at [email address], or at their
web site at www.state.nj.us/grc. The GRC can also answer other questions
about the law. All questions regarding complaints filed in Superior Court
should be directed to the Court Clerk in your County.
Best Regards,
Gabriella Siboni
Township Clerk
Township of Neptune
25 Neptune Blvd
Neptune, NJ 07753
732.988.5200 Ext. 234
I am just wondering if anything pertaining to Gina LaPlaca's deceiving and immoral behaviors as business administrator is pertinent enough information that is requestable by law, or is it just your personal relationship that designates that everything falls under a "blanket" of confidentiality versus transparency?
Now that this is the second request—the first one pertaining to zero emails requested between Ms. LaPlaca and Lt. MacConchie, for which you inaccurately quoted a case—all information has been passed on to the GRC and town attorney. Please do not let that be confused with the Labor Attorney, who is also in Ms. LaPlaca's pocket and seems to come to her aid in her finest hours of crisis.
You should be ashamed to be upholding an oath as a municipal clerk of "impartially and justly performing your duties with honesty" while Ms. LaPlaca uses you to cover up her sexual activities and disgraceful behavior, treating the employees of Neptune Township with zero fairness across the board.
Let it also be noted that these emails and communications that were requested show clear evidence of both Ms. LaPlaca and Mr. Milmoe's ploy to take their own "racist lawsuit" against the current mayor, Ms. Tassie York. Ms. LaPlaca has openly claimed that other committee members she serves with are racist, while she is aiding Mr. Milmoe and finds humor in his disgraceful social media posts. Ms. LaPlaca is going to cost Neptune township taxpayers millions of dollars with her "false racist lawsuits" that she plans to collect on prior to leaving Neptune Township. Again, all of this is clearly found within texts and emails that are being covered by "blanket case numbers".
It is essential that the principles of transparency and accountability are upheld, and I hope this matter will be addressed with the seriousness it deserves.
Sincerely,
John Klein