Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
PER CURIAM
Harry B. Scheeler, Jr. (Mr. Scheeler) appeals from a January
30, 2015 final agency decision entered by the Government Records
Council (GRC) finding that the New Jersey Department of Education
(DOE) lawfully redacted school board members' home addresses from
documents Mr. Scheeler requested under the Open Public Records Act
(OPRA), N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1 to -13.
We affirm.
The DOE
Scheeler,
acting
pro
se,
filed
denial
of
access
A-3125-14T3
the
filing
of
disclosure
forms,
the
form
does
not
A-3125-14T3
addresses
contained
on
the
responsive
[financial
disclosure]
forms."
On appeal, Mr. Scheeler argues (1) OPRA mandates that any
limitation on the right of access must be construed in favor of
public access; (2) the board members were legally required to
provide their home addresses on the financial disclosure forms;
(3) the GRC erred in not applying the balancing test under Burnett
v. County of Bergen, 198 N.J. 408 (2009), in determining that
OPRA's privacy provision allowed redaction of the addresses; and
(4) the Burnett balancing test requires disclosure of the home
addresses.
"[U]nder our deferential standard of review, we give weight
to the GRC's interpretation of OPRA."
This deference
As
such,
the
determinations
and
findings
of
an
administrative agency will not be set aside absent "a clear showing
that (1) the agency did not follow the law; (2) the decision was
arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable; or (3) the decision was
not supported by substantial evidence."
In re Virtua-West Jersey
A-3125-14T3
Hosp. Voorhees for a Certificate of Need, 194 N.J. 413, 422 (2008)
(citing In re Herrmann, 192 N.J. 19, 28 (2007)).
The GRC, an administrative agency, is statutorily authorized
to adjudicate disputes pertaining to access to government records.
N.J.S.A. 47:1A-7(b).
194 N.J. 534, 551 (2008) (quoting Mayflower Sec. Co. v. Bureau of
Sec., 64 N.J. 85, 93 (1973)).
The Legislature explained that the purpose of OPRA was "to
insure
that
government
records,
unless
exempted,
are
readily
shall
inspection,
be
examination
readily
by
the
accessible
citizens
for
of
[New
Jersey],
copying,
with
or
certain
on
the
right
of
access
as
amended
and
A-3125-14T3
N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1.
Asbury
parties
agree
that
the
record
requested
here
is
The only
N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1.
A-3125-14T3
Dep't. of Educ., supra, GRC Complaint No. 2012-126 (Apr. 30, 2013).
Although the GRC did not analyze each factor, it filed a written
opinion which was not arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable.
The
GRC stated "because [Mr. Scheeler's] need for access to the [board]
members' home addresses failed to outweigh the [DOE's] need to
7
A-3125-14T3
keep same confidential, the [DOE] has not unlawfully denied access
to
the
members'
home
addresses
contained
on
the
responsive
Burnett,
Ibid.
invoke
identifier
the
privacy
interest,
with
other
information
but
can
combining
heighten
one
the
personal
privacy
A-3125-14T3
The fact that the board members may disclose their home
A-3125-14T3
Id. at 434.
However,
once the home addresses are disclosed through OPRA requests, there
is
nothing
preventing
Mr.
Scheeler
from
disseminating
the
information along with the board members' names and any other
information from the forms.
weigh this factor in the DOE's favor because the DOE could not
prevent unauthorized disclosure.
The sixth factor, the degree of need for access, clearly
weighs in favor of redaction.
The
town, state, and zip codes were not redacted so this argument is
without
opinion.
sufficient
merit
to
warrant
discussion
in
written
R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).
10
A-3125-14T3
Mr. Scheeler
the GRC, the agency did not act contrary to the law here.
The School Ethics Act is designed to identify and eliminate
conflicts of interest.
N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.
the
unnecessary.
home
address
field
from
the
forms
as
it
was
A-3125-14T3
Times of
Trenton Publ'g Corp. v. Lafayette Yard Cmty. Dev. Corp., 183 N.J.
519,
535
(2005)
(quoting
Asbury
Park
Press
v.
Ocean
Cty.
12
A-3125-14T3