Cloud Hosting

Local officials in Irvington Township said they were being bullied and annoyed by an 82-year-old retired schoolteacher, so they went to court to make her stop.

Elouise McDaniel said her only recent info request from the town clerk was about the Rent Leveling Board who sits on it, what they make, when they meet, etc. Its her right to ask for such records, under the Open Public Records Act.

The town responded by filing a lawsuit that said the womans sole purpose was to harass, abuse, and harm people who worked there, including the mayor. The suit said Jaccuse! that she had committed harassment and defamation and malicious abuse of process.

Actually, Ms. McDaniel made exactly 75 OPRA requests in three years. That comes out to one every two weeks. That doesnt seem excessive. And it certainly doesnt sound malicious, unless the clerk has a torturous papercut that prevents him from opening cabinet drawers or tapping the print button on his keyboard.

Fortunately, after two days of bad press and a pile of national shame that comes with this kind of officious resistance, Irvington dropped its suit late Thursday.

But it might help to review the OPRA ground rules again for other municipalities and public entities that might get nettled when grandma comes around asking for a few documents during Sunshine Week.

Rule 1: These records belong to the peoplethey are public records, and the clerk is the statutory custodian of our records, so this isnt extra work, said attorney CJ Griffin, who represented McDaniel. Its a core duty of the clerk thats just as important as any other duty.

Yes, on occasion a requestor asks for too much info. Its usually a commercial entity that is data mining, such as the pet food company looking for the addresses of a towns dog owners for a mail campaign. It is not usually a private citizen.

But even the nuisance requestor probably knows the rules. Reporters know them better than anyone.

Dont miss the best in editorials, opinion columns and commentary from NJ.com writers. Add your email here:

Under our OPRA law, anyone can request documents -- budgets, labor contracts, salary info, etc. and the custodian must provide that data within 7 days or request more time to comply. If it is an unreasonable delay, the record-keeper can be sued and be subject to paying the plaintiffs legal expenses.

There are other rules commonly known. If the request involves an extraordinary expenditure of time and effort to accommodate it, the agency may apply a reasonable service charge. If the request would substantially disrupt agency operations, the custodian may deny access after attempting to reach a reasonable solution.

But a government office should not file a lawsuit against a citizen looking for records. In fact, more than 20 states have laws to prevent that, though New Jersey isnt one of them.

Volume is not an OPRA problem, OK? An OPRA problem is when information is being misused or abused, and I wasnt seeing that at all in this case, said attorney Walter Luers, the president of the NJ Foundation For Open Government. If the volume is too much, you just ask for extensions, reasonable accommodations, or request special service charges. But you dont sue them to make them stop.

Luers knows the folly of such suits: He represented Elie Jones, who made 300 OPRA requests in just two months from the borough of Teaneck. The borough sued in 2017, but the judge sided with Jones, and ruled that Teaneck had to pay his $20,000 in legal fees.

The message was clear: While some requests are excessive, the court must not drop a blanket ban on gadflies, and requests should be analyzed on a case-by-case basis.

Thankfully, the courts have been strong in upholding OPRA in recent years. Unlike other branches of government, they know that it is a cornerstone to our democracy that cannot be weakened.

Our journalism needs your support. Please subscribe today to NJ.com.

Bookmark NJ.com/Opinion. Follow on Twitter @NJ_Opinion and find NJ.com Opinion on Facebook.

Read this article:

Does this look like the face of a bully? | Editorial - NJ.com