Please accept this as my request for government records under both OPRA and the common law right of access. Thank you very much for your commitment to transparent government.

RECORDS REQUESTED:

1. For Police Officer Joyce Lee, her "name, title, position, most recent annual salary, length of service, date of separation and the reason therefor." (See N.J.S.A. 47:1A-10).

2. By way of background, I note that the settlement agreement of Joyce Lee v Absecon, Docket No. ATL-1287-21 resolved two disciplinary cases: a) I-2020-021907 (the Dollar General incident) which was a Neglect of Duty charge that resulted in Lee receiving a 30-day working suspension and b) I-2021-012757 (the Shooting Range incident) which was also a Neglect of Duty charge that resulted in Lee being demoted from Sergeant to Patrol officer. Yet, the Police Department's 2021 Annual Major Discipline Reporting Form, available on the Department's website, shows only one "Neglect of Duty" charge that encompassed both the suspension and demotion. The brief summary of Lee's transgression, as required by Internal Affair Policy & Procedures Section 9.11.2 (amended by Attorney General Law Enforcement Directive 2020-05 states that Lee "failed to take appropriate action on the occasion of a high-priority call."

I do not know if the "high priority call" transgression involved the Dollar General or the Shooting Range incident. Also, if the summary related to only one of the charges, I believe that the public is entitled to know the summary of the transgression that related to the other charge. Accordingly, I would like the following records:

a) brief summary of Lee's transgression in the Dollar General incident.

b) brief summary of Lee's transgression in the Shooting Range incident.

3. That both disciplinary incidents were a) major in that they resulted in a demotion and a lengthy suspension and b) were settled at the same time as Officer Lee's lawsuit that alleged, among other things, that high ranking male officers made "remarks about [female officers'] physical appearance and [were] ogling their bodies on surveillance video," raises a reasonable question as to whether the disciplinary actions were motivated by an improper purpose. Accordingly, for both disciplinary cases, I would like, under the common law right of access, redacted versions of the "findings of fact" that discloses sufficient information so that members of the public can judge for themselves whether the quantum of discipline imposed upon Lee was appropriate.

Dear Ms. Crone:

In your prior message you stated that your "office will provide a response on or before February 16, 2023." I have yet to receive that response. Please advise.

Thank you.
John Paff

Dear Ms. Crone:

Thank you. March 28th is fine.

John Paff