Ms. Gina LaPlaca, Esq.: Verification of Deceiving Legal Standing and Ethical Concerns Regarding Neptune Township Emlpoyees / Subordinates
Dear Neptune Township Municpal Clerk,
Pursuant to the Open Public Records Act, N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1 et seq., I am writing to request access to and copies of the following records:
1. Emails Between Mr. David Milmoe and Business Administrator Gina LaPlaca: I request any and all emails exchanged between Mr. David Milmoe and Business Administrator Gina LaPlaca. This request specifically asks for all original emails and threads that were previously not provided in their complete and unaltered form.
2. Communications Involving Mr. Keith Cafferty and Gina LaPlaca Regarding the November 2023 Special Meeting: I request all communications, including emails, phone logs, and text messages between Mr. Keith Cafferty (cell phone number 732-245-3808 and Neptune Township email) and Gina LaPlaca (personal cell 917-648-4720 and work number 609-218-3798) concerning the special meeting initially scheduled for November 2023. This request covers the period from September 10, 2023, to December 31, 2023, and includes the rationale for why this meeting was not rescheduled. Additionally, please include any documentation of communication in relation to Senator GoPal and his involvement in Ms. LaPlaca’s job security.
3. Phone Logs and Texts Between Gina LaPlaca and Sergeant Frank Maletto: I request all phone logs, including call durations and text message dates, between Gina LaPlaca (cell numbers 917-648-4720 and 609-218-3798) and Sergeant Frank Maletto (cell number 732-239-2382) from August 30, 2023, through the present date.
4. I request verification of Ms. Gina LaPlaca's credentials, specifically her use of the Esq. title, including proof of her valid and up-to-date status for the year 2024, with all fees paid as required by the state. This includes, but is not limited to, her standing on the NJ Eligibility List through NJ Courts. If Ms. LaPlaca is listed as ineligible, please provide the reasons for her ineligibility.
This request is prompted by concerns regarding Ms. LaPlaca’s provision of legal advice to employees within Neptune Township, which could mislead employees about her legal standing. The display of the Esq. title on Neptune Township platforms creates a perception that she is in good standing and eligible to provide legal services, or that she is acting in her capacity as a lawyer.
It has come to our attention from both the police department and township employees, that Ms. LaPlaca's position and will to retain attention and acceptance through inappropriate interactions with her subordinates, interferes with her ability to make informed and unbiased decisions. She has used her power with many heads of departments, including but not limited to the F.O.P., P.B.A. and D.P.W. , Internal Affairs and traffic to have inappropriate relations both inside and outside of the workplace during work hours and beyond. This is a clear violation of ethics on her behalf and is negligent on the Neptune Township committees part for the employees that are clearly affected by her actions and behaviors toward those that do not partake in her attention seeking affairs. Many employees have expressed that they have limited faith and interaction in fear of retaliation from both Ms. Gabriella Siboni and Ms. Gina LaPlaca. This has the strong potential for ethics violations and implications within the workplace environment. It is clear that Ms. LaPlaca's actions have led to an atmosphere of intimidation and favoritism, negatively impacting employee morale and interactions.
We are also aware of Ms. LaPlaca's familiarity with legal matters, given her history of providing pro bono legal advice to employees regarding potential lawsuits they could have against the township and her public legal advice given during township committee meetings. It is our hope that she is also aware of the legal ramifications of her actions, which may expose the township to significant legal risks from multiple employees seeking redress.
This request is made with the understanding that these records are of public interest due to concerns about transparency and ethical practices within the township’s administration. I trust that all responsive documents will be provided in accordance with OPRA guidelines.
If any of the requested records are not readily available or if there is a need for clarification, please contact me at your earliest convenience in order to be more specific or clarify any of our requests.
Thank you for your attention to this matter. I look forward to your prompt response within the timeframe required by OPRA.
Sincerely,
John Klein
The Township of Neptune received an Open Public Records Act (OPRA) request
on August 15, 2024. As such, the seven (7) business day deadline to
respond to your request is August 26, 2024
The request was for:
1. Emails Between Mr. David Milmoe and Business Administrator Gina
LaPlaca: I request any and all emails exchanged between Mr. David
Milmoe and Business Administrator Gina LaPlaca. This request
specifically asks for all original emails and threads that were
previously not provided in their complete and unaltered form.
A request for a “file” “all” “any and all” etc. is invalid because it
represents a blanket request for a class of various, unidentifiable
records and constitutes a broad and unclear request. See Morgano v Essex
Cnty. Prosecutors’s Office, GRC Complaint No. 2007-190 (February 2008);
Nunley v N.J. State Parole Bd., GRC Complaint No. 2013 -335 (July 2014);
Redden v. Cape May Cnty. Prosecutor’s Office GRC Complaint No. 2007-206
(September 2009); Bragg v. N.J. Dep’t of Corrections, GRC Complaint No.
2010-145 (March2011); Bradley-Williams v. Atlantic Cnty. Jail, GRC
Complaint No. 2011-232 (December 2012); Torian v. N.J. State Parole Bd.,
GRC Complaint No. 2013-245 (June 2014)
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.
2. Communications Involving Mr. Keith Cafferty and Gina LaPlaca Regarding
the November 2023 Special Meeting: I request all communications,
including emails, phone logs, and text messages between Mr. Keith
Cafferty (cell phone number 732-245-3808 and Neptune Township email)
and Gina LaPlaca (personal cell 917-648-4720 and work number
609-218-3798) concerning the special meeting initially scheduled for
November 2023. This request covers the period from September 10, 2023,
to December 31, 2023, and includes the rationale for why this meeting
was not rescheduled.
A search of e-mails between Gina LaPlaca and Keith Cafferty between
September 10, 2023 and December 31, 2023 concerning the Special Meeting
scheduled for November 2023. Through this search, there were no responsive
records.
Additionally, please include any documentation of communication in
relation to Senator GoPal and his involvement in Ms. LaPlaca’s job
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 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.
3. Phone Logs and Texts Between Gina LaPlaca and Sergeant Frank Maletto:
I request all phone logs, including call durations and text message
dates, between Gina LaPlaca (cell numbers 917-648-4720 and
609-218-3798) and Sergeant Frank Maletto (cell number 732-239-2382)
from August 30, 2023, through the present date.
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 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.
Further, to the extent that records may exist, they are likely not
considered public records pursuant to N.J.S.A. 47:1A-10
4. I request verification of Ms. Gina LaPlaca's credentials, specifically
her use of the Esq. title, including proof of her valid and up-to-date
status for the year 2024, with all fees paid as required by the state.
This includes, but is not limited to, her standing on the NJ
Eligibility List through NJ Courts. If Ms. LaPlaca is listed as
ineligible, please provide the reasons for her ineligibility. This
request is prompted by concerns regarding Ms. LaPlaca’s provision of
legal advice to employees within Neptune Township, which could mislead
employees about her legal standing. The display of the Esq. title on
Neptune Township platforms creates a perception that she is in good
standing and eligible to provide legal services, or that she is acting
in her capacity as a lawyer.
This is not a record of Neptune Township, therefore there are no
responsive records. Also, while credentials directly related to or
required for performing the duties of the appointed position should be
released, there are no requirements in position of Business Administrator
that would require her to have a current Esq. title.
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 [1][email address], or at
their web site at [2]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
[3][email address]
732.988.5200 Ext. 234
Dear Gabriella Siboni,
I am writing to address the recent denial of my OPRA request for emails exchanged between Mr. David Milmoe and Business Administrator Gina LaPlaca. The request, as stated, was for all original and unaltered emails and threads that were not previously provided in their complete form.
It appears the denial was based on the assertion that the request is too broad or unclear, as indicated by previous case law, including Morgano v. Essex County Prosecutor's Office, and others. I would like to clarify and refine my request to address these concerns.
To be specific, my request is for:
All email communications between Mr. David Milmoe and Business Administrator Gina LaPlaca from January 1, 2024 to August 15, 2024. This includes all original and unaltered emails, as well as complete email threads, which were not included in any previously provided documents.
A clarification of the documents previously provided. If any of the provided emails were edited or redacted, I request that the unaltered versions be disclosed. I have noted that some emails seemed to be edited and would like to receive the full, unaltered records to ensure the completeness of the information.
I understand that the broad language in my original request may have led to confusion. However, I believe specifying the dates and focusing on the completeness of the email records will better align with OPRA requirements and ensure that I receive the full and accurate information.
In regards to the denial of my OPRA request for phone logs and text messages between Gina LaPlaca and Sergeant Frank Maletto. Specifically, the denial was based on the assertion that the request is invalid because it does not identify specific government records, referencing case law such as New Jersey Builders Association v. New Jersey Council on Affordable Housing and Bent v. Stafford Police Department.
To clarify and address these concerns:
Request for Phone Logs: I specifically requested all phone logs, including call durations, between Gina LaPlaca (cell numbers 917-648-4720 and 609-218-3798) and Sergeant Frank Maletto (cell number 732-239-2382) from August 30, 2023, to the present date. This request is clear in scope and time frame and seeks detailed records of phone communications, not a broad or indefinite range of documents.
Request for Text Messages: My request was for the dates of text messages exchanged between the specified phone numbers within the same time frame. This does not seek the content of the messages but only the dates, which is a specific and reasonable request under OPRA.
I acknowledge that OPRA requires requests to identify specific records with reasonable clarity. In this case, the request specifies the nature of the records (phone logs and text message dates), the parties involved, and the relevant time period. It does not seek to create new records or conduct extensive research beyond what is available within the normal scope of OPRA compliance.
Given the specificity of the request, I believe it aligns with OPRA's requirements and should be processed accordingly. The request is not overly broad or complex and does not require the creation of new records but rather the extraction of existing data.
Lastly, my concern regarding the denial of my OPRA requests related to the Business Administrator, Gina LaPlaca, and her interactions with subordinates. It appears that these requests have been systematically denied or inadequately addressed, which raises significant concerns about transparency and compliance with OPRA requirements.
Specifically:
Denied Requests: My requests for emails and phone logs involving Gina LaPlaca and Sergeant Frank Maletto, as well as Keith Cafferty, Lt. James MacConchie and David Milmoe have been denied or inadequately addressed. These requests were made in good faith and with clear specificity, yet the responses received indicate a lack of compliance or possible obfuscation.
Reported to GRC: I have reported these issues to the Government Records Council (GRC) and am prepared to pursue further actions, including subpoenas, if necessary, to obtain the requested documents.
Concerns of Ethics Violations: The repeated denial or inadequate fulfillment of these requests, particularly those dating back to September 2023, and the submission of edited or incomplete emails suggest potential ethical breaches. These actions not only undermine the public’s right to information but may also reflect misconduct within the administration.
Documentation of Issues: Communications and requests dating back to September 2023 have been documented and reported. The failure to provide the full and unaltered records as requested is a serious concern and appears to violate both OPRA requirements and ethical standards.
Given these issues, I urge you to:
Review and Address Requests: Reassess and provide the requested documents in their complete and unaltered form, or provide a detailed explanation if these cannot be produced.
Compliance and Transparency: Ensure that all future responses are in full compliance with OPRA requirements and demonstrate transparency.
Inform of Legal Actions: Notify me promptly if there are any procedural or legal steps necessary to facilitate the fulfillment of these requests, including any potential for subpoenas.
There are concerns that your (municipal clerk) close relationship between Ms. LaPlaca and the involved parties may have influenced the handling of my requests. This raises questions about the impartiality and integrity of the response process. It is imperative that responses to OPRA requests remain unbiased and in full compliance with legal and ethical standards. Any actions or omissions influenced by personal relationships or attempts to dismiss valid requests undermine the public’s right to information. It is my hope that your administration ensures that all responses to OPRA requests are handled objectively and without influence from personal relationships or external pressures.
Please consider this a formal notice of the seriousness of these concerns. I appreciate your attention to this matter and look forward to your prompt resolution of these issues.
Regards,
John Klein
The Township of Neptune is in receipt of a records request. The request
was for:
All email communications between Mr. David Milmoe and Business
Administrator Gina LaPlaca from January 1, 2024 to August 15, 2024. This
includes all original and unaltered emails, as well as complete email
threads, which were not included in any previously provided documents.
A request for a “file” “all” “any and all” etc. is invalid because it
represents a blanket request for a class of various, unidentifiable
records and constitutes a broad and unclear request. See Morgano v Essex
Cnty. Prosecutors’s Office, GRC Complaint No. 2007-190 (February 2008);
Nunley v N.J. State Parole Bd., GRC Complaint No. 2013 -335 (July 2014);
Redden v. Cape May Cnty. Prosecutor’s Office GRC Complaint No. 2007-206
(September 2009); Bragg v. N.J. Dep’t of Corrections, GRC Complaint No.
2010-145 (March2011); Bradley-Williams v. Atlantic Cnty. Jail, GRC
Complaint No. 2011-232 (December 2012); Torian v. N.J. State Parole Bd.,
GRC Complaint No. 2013-245 (June 2014)
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.
If records were identified, they are likely to constitute personnel
records which are exempt from OPRA disclosure. N.J.S.A. 47:1A-10.
A clarification of the documents previously provided. If any of the
provided emails were edited or redacted, I request that the unaltered
versions be disclosed. I have noted that some emails seemed to be edited
and would like to receive the full, unaltered records to ensure the
completeness of the information.
I understand that the broad language in my original request may have led
to confusion. However, I believe specifying the dates and focusing on the
completeness of the email records will better align with OPRA requirements
and ensure that I receive the full and accurate information.
OPRA 24-533 request was for “Pursuant to the Open Public Records Act
(OPRA), I am requesting copies of emails between, but not limited to, the
following employees of Neptune Township that pertain to any subjects
related to David Milmoe, Ed Santiago, DPW, suspension, disciplinary
actions, or requests on behalf of character. The specific employees
involved in these email correspondences are David Milmoe, Ed Santiago,
Gina LaPlaca, and Michele Narciso."
A response was provided and a Vaughn index was included with the
documents. Redacted information was personal identifying information and
would not be eligible for release. No documents were edited, a search was
produced from the MIS department based on the search criteria. They
provided the e-mails in a pdf export and that pdf was subsequently
redacted accordingly.
Request for Text Messages: My request was for the dates of text messages
exchanged between the specified phone numbers within the same time frame.
This does not seek the content of the messages but only the dates, which
is a specific and reasonable request under OPRA.
I acknowledge that OPRA requires requests to identify specific records
with reasonable clarity. In this case, the request specifies the nature of
the records (phone logs and text message dates), the parties involved, and
the relevant time period. It does not seek to create new records or
conduct extensive research beyond what is available within the normal
scope of OPRA compliance.
Given the specificity of the request, I believe it aligns with OPRA's
requirements and should be processed accordingly. The request is not
overly broad or complex and does not require the creation of new records
but rather the extraction of existing data.
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. Paff v. Galloway Twp., 229 N.J. 340, 355-56
(2017) (“Seeking particular information from the custodian is permissible;
expecting the custodian to do research is not.”).
If records were identified, they are likely to constitute personnel
records which are exempt from OPRA disclosure. N.J.S.A. 47:1A-10.
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