Dan Lewis

Nj Opra Settlement Agreements

The Appeal Division recently issued a notice that will cause problems for the trustees. The court decided for the first time that the immediately accessible provision of OPRA applies to claims for legal settlement. Scheeler versus Galloway Tp. The panel has “no doubt” that the transaction agreement is a public record to which the applicant can probably express interest. But in any event, which lay these considerations in the county`s interest in confidentiality, “particularly in light of the county`s earlier assertions that the revelations could influence an ongoing criminal investigation at the time,” the legal department should rule on the basis of the current status. The decision requiring the disclosure of the transaction agreement under OPRA, the finding of the applicant`s dominant party, as well as legal fees, was quashed. No court had previously considered whether litigation was the type of contract submitted to the “immediate access” section of OPRA. As I will discuss in a future article, I do not think the legislature intended to apply this legal provision to transaction agreements. The Appeal Division has “little doubt” that the PNDA, for which the applicant did not file a complaint, is a “personal file”. In OPRA`s plain language, “recordings of any complaint filed by or against a person are not considered a government protocol.” Accurso J.A. argued that “disciplinary records themselves are exempt from disclosure in accordance with Section 10, and it is difficult to understand why an internal regulation to resolve disciplinary charges, in which a worker often accepts discipline, would not be viewed in the same way as exempt from personalism.

We expect that some staff members will agree to settle disciplinary charges, at least in part, to avoid disclosure of the charges. It distinguished cases that allowed access to comparisons of civil trials. This internal regulation does not imply the same guidelines. Although the authorization was signed only by the former director, the Appeal Division found that a final agreement had been reached between the parties on the basis of the circumstances.