October 1, 2021

Dear Sir or Madam,

This correspondence is being sent in response to the Open Public Records Act (“OPRA”) request you submitted to the Ridgewood Public Schools. As the official Records Custodian, I received this request on October 1, 2021. As such, the seven (7) business day deadline to respond to your request is October 12, 2021. I will be sending a response to your request within this deadline.

If your request for access to a government record has been denied or unfilled within the seven business days required by law, you have a right to challenge the Board’s decision 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 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, New Jersey, 08625, by e-mail at [email address], or at their website at www.state.nj.us/grc. The Council 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.

Sincerely,

Scott T. Bisig, M.Ed.
Business Administrator/Board Secretary
Ridgewood Public Schools

October 11, 2021

Dear Sir/Madam:

The Ridgewood Public Schools (“District”) records custodian received your Open Public Records Act (“OPRA”) request submitted after business hours on September 30, 2021. The seven business day deadline to respond to your request is October 13, 2021. As such, the District is timely responding to your OPRA request in accordance with New Jersey law.

Your OPRA request seeks the following records:

Since June 1, 2020, the following, please email me the following: 1. Hostile work environment claims or complaints against Kwak and/or Dani by a RPS District employee; 2. Healthy Workplace Environment claims or complaints against Kwak and/or Dani; 3. Copies of all invoices or bills for the costs of all investigations into above claims/complaints; 4. Emails to/from Kwak and Dani with the search terms: "Hostile Work", "Healthy Workplace," and [sic] and/or "Harassment."

With respect to items 1-3, please note that your request is overly broad, as it fails to identify with reasonable clarity any particular records sought. OPRA operates to make identifiable government records “readily accessible for inspection, copying, or examination.” N.J.S.A. § 47:1A-1. New Jersey courts have consistently held that OPRA does not countenance open-ended searches of an agency’s files. MAG Entm’t, LLC v. Div. of ABC, 375 N.J. Super. 534, 549 (App. Div. 2005); New Jersey Builders Ass’n v. New Jersey Council on Affordable Housing, 390 N.J. Super. 166 (App. Div.), cert. denied, 190 N.J. 394 (2007). Consequently, 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.” See e.g., Spectraserv, Inc. v. Middlesex Cty. Utilities Auth., 416 N.J. Super. 565, 576 (App. Div. 2010); Bent v. Twp. of Stafford Police Dep’t, 381 N.J. Super. 30, 37 (App. Div. 2005). OPRA requests may not be a broad generic description of documents that require the custodian to search the agency’s files and “analyze, compile, and collate” the requested information. Id.; see also Lagerkvist v. Office of Governor of State, 443 N.J. Super. 230, 237 (App. Div. 2015) (holding that OPRA does not convert a custodian into a researcher, which would have been the effect of the request). Your request is clearly deficient as it purportedly seeks all of the District’s records relating to alleged hostile work environment claims or complaints against two individuals, and purports to require the District’s records custodian to conduct research with respect to same. See Parreott v. Asbury Park School District, GRC 3 Complaint Nos. 2016-20 & 2016-39 (Sept. 2017) (holding that the portion of the request seeking “all relevant documents” was invalid because it sought a class of various records and would have required the records custodian to conduct research in order to locate responsive records); see also Burke v. Ocean Cty., 2013 WL 6169154 (App. Div. 2013) (holding that an OPRA request is not the equivalent of law suit discovery).

As the District does not organize its invoices/bills by particular investigations, please note that your request would clearly require the District’s records custodian to conduct research in order to identify responsive records. See Scarano v. City of Asbury Park, GRC Complaint No. 2011-314 (March 2013) (noting with respect to a request for legal expenses that a custodian is not required to conduct research from among its records and correlate data from various government records in its possession, and is not required to create records that do not otherwise exist); Tully v. Borough of Avon-by-the-Sea, GRC Complaint No. 2016-102 (July 2018) (finding that the OPRA request was invalid because it would require the records custodian to conduct research in order to determine which, or whether any, of the Board’s minutes covering a 10 year period contained references to a particular individual). Thus, the District cannot search for and provide the records that item 3 of your request purportedly seeks to access.

Notwithstanding the invalidity of items 1-3 of your request, please note that the District conducted a good faith search for records that are potentially responsive to items 1 and 2. The District identified two responsive records. However, these records constitute “personnel records” of the District’s Business Administrator within the meaning of N.J.S.A. § 47:1A-10, that do not fall within any of the statutory exceptions that otherwise allow for public access under particular circumstances. The District also conducted a good faith search and identified 66 pages of records that are potentially responsive to item 4 of your request. These records constitute “personnel records” of Dr. Daniel Fishbein and Antoinette Kelly that do not fall within any of the statutory exceptions allowing for public access in particular circumstances, and the District is legally precluded from releasing same. Moreover, these potentially responsive records consist of various correspondence between residents and Board members; release of these records would clearly violate the residents’ reasonable expectation of privacy. See N.J.S.A. § 47:1A-1 (“a public agency has a responsibility and an obligation to safeguard from public access a citizen's personal information with which it has been entrusted when disclosure thereof would violate the citizen's reasonable expectation of privacy”). Accordingly, the District is denying your OPRA request.

Lastly, to the extent that you are seeking the requested items pursuant to the common law right of access, your request is also denied. In O’Boyle v. Borough of Longport, 218 N.J. 168, 196 (2014), the Supreme Court of New Jersey held that the party requesting documents under the common law right of access must explain why he seeks access to the requested documents. Here, your request lacks any explanation with respect to your purported interest in accessing the claims/complaints and/or communications at issue.

Your OPRA request is now deemed answered and closed.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Very truly yours,

Scott Bisig
Business Administrator/Board Secretary