Sender, recipient, date, and subject of R. Lamptey emails 4/7/2023
Dear Irvington Board of Education,
This is a request for public records made under OPRA and the common law right of access. I am not required to fill out an official form. Please acknowledge receipt of this message.
Records requested:
The sender, recipient, date, and subject of all emails sent and received by R. Lamptey on 4/7/2023 and 4/10/2023.
Yours faithfully,
R OConnor
Good Afternoon,
Requested information attached.
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
The information in this email and the documents that are attached to it,
if any, may contain privileged, confidential, legally privileged, and/or
exempt from disclosure under applicable law. It is for the sole use of the
intended recipient(s). If you are not the intended recipient of this
communication, any disclosure, copying, facsimile, distribution, or use of
the contents of this information is strictly prohibited and may be
unlawful. If you have received this electronic transmission in error,
please reply immediately to the sender that you have received the message
in error, and delete it. Thank you.
Dear Irvington Board of Education,
Please pass this on to the person who conducts Open Public Records Act reviews.
I am writing to request an internal review of Irvington Board of Education's handling of my OPRA request 'Sender, recipient, date, and subject of R. Lamptey emails 4/7/2023'.
You are required by law to state the specific lawful basis for each redaction.
From the GRC website at https://www.nj.gov/grc/custodians/redact....
Explaining Why A Redaction is Made
When redactions are made to a record, the custodian can use either the request form to explain why those elements of a record are redacted, or use a separate document, depending on the circumstances, but also referring to the OPRA exception being claimed. This principle also applies if pages of information are redacted. Sometimes it is clear from inspection (a entry called "Social Security Number" has a black out over where the number would appear). The bottom line is that the requester has a right to know the reason for the redaction, and the custodian has the responsibility to provide a reasonable explanation.
Two Relevant GRC Cases
Paff v. Borough of Lavallette (Ocean), GRC Complaint No. 2007-209 (Interim Order dated May
24, 2011): The Council held that the custodian’s response was insufficient because he failed to
provide the specific lawful basis for each redaction made to executive session minutes (citing
Schwarz v. N.J. Dep’t of Human Serv., GRC Complaint No. 2004-60 (February 2005)).
Rivera v. City of Camden (Camden), GRC Complaint No. 2010-182 (Interim Order dated January
31, 2012): The Council determined that the custodian’s response was insufficient because he failed
to identify the specific lawful basis for each redaction made to monthly billing records pursuant to
N.J.S.A. 47:1A-5(g).
A full history of my OPRA request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address: https://opramachine.com/request/sender_r...
Yours faithfully,
R OConnor