New Jersey lawmakers reversed course on a controversial bill that critics say would give government bureaucrats and politicians more power to withhold information from the public.
Some Garden State Democrats had sought early passage of a bill to change the state’s open records law, but withdrew Thursday, withdrawing the bill before a key committee voted to pass it.
The decision was hailed as a victory for open government advocates who fought tooth and nail to eradicate the government, even if it didn’t eliminate it forever.
“Democracy only works when the people’s voices are heard, and today we made sure they were heard,” Sara Fajardo, policy director for the ACLU of New Jersey, told the Post in a statement. Told. “It is not lost on anyone that this rushed effort to roll back transparency was poised to be passed through backroom deals without public input, and New Jerseyans deserve better. .”
Lawmakers were trying to flesh out the bill. State Senate S-2930 and A-4045 at the General Assembly This comes as an “amendment” to a 22-year-old law that thwarts profiteers and data brokers who flood the city with requests and sell that information to third parties.
But transparency advocates decried the bill as an attack on the public’s right to know, saying the changes would make it easier for government agencies to withhold documents or deny requests. .
A letter from the League of Women Voters to legislative leaders said: “This is an attack on transparency in the New Jersey Legislature, where lawmakers are reducing the public’s access to information in the name of ‘transparency.’ It’s part of a disturbing trend.” ACLU, and Working Families Party.
But despite Opposition They included labor leaders, the state’s public defender’s office, the Office of the Comptroller, and U.S. Senate Democratic hopefuls Rep. Andy Kim and First Lady Tammy Murphy, who represent the state’s majority party. appeared ready to force the bill to a vote.
That changed Thursday when Assembly Speaker Craig Coughlin (D-Middlesex) removed it from the committee’s agenda.
“We appreciate the concerns raised regarding A-4045,” Coughlin said. He said in a statement posted on X. “Currently, we are working on various amendments to ensure that the bill is submitted correctly…As such, this bill will not be debated today.
“We will take the necessary time to meet with various stakeholders to modernize our systems. [the law] “It’s a way to protect the public from having personal information, driver’s license numbers, and other sensitive information visible to anyone,” the speaker continued.
As it stands, the law provides an avenue for any member of the public, including journalists and reporters, to request records that may have been suppressed.
However, there are a number of exceptions that are already incorporated into the statute.
For example, police departments are not required to release some investigation records, town officials are required to redact personal information such as social security numbers, and elected officials’ email requests are “too broad.” ” may be rejected.
Still, the information gleaned from such requests has had a profound impact on local and, in some cases, national politics.
Jennifer Borg, a former in-house lawyer for the Record, testified before lawmakers that without the law (colloquially known as “OPRA”) no one would have known about the Bridgegate scandal. In the scandal, members of then-Gov. Chris Christie’s administration conspired to close lanes leading to the George Washington Bridge in 2013, according to records.
Advocates of the new bill argued that the law needed to be amended to reduce the number of requests flooding local governments, particularly from the aforementioned commercial interests.
“I see this as a modernization of OPRA,” said state Sen. Paul Sarlo (D-Bergen), the bill’s sponsor and budget chairman. “We want to stop people from profiteering off of OPRA on the backs of taxpayers.”
But the bill would also require records keepers to redact personal information they believe could lead to “harassment,” which critics say is It was skewered as a vague statement that could lead to unnecessary blackface.
Additionally, it frees administrators from the obligation to digitize records, removes immediate access to records such as budgets and contracts older than a year, and requires requesters to fill out specific forms ostensibly created by authorities. will require you to do so. They’re looking for data from there.
It would also limit the disclosure of public officials’ text messages, emails, and communications unless prosecutors list specific subjects and time periods, which would limit reporters’ attempts to expose corruption in public officials. This will be a significant hindrance.
Then, the administrator (often the local town clerk) “obtained the records for the purpose of harassing a public authority or materially interfering with the functioning of the government” and sued in state court. be able to wake up.
If the court agrees, it could “remove the obligation of public agencies to respond to government records requests in the future.”
But it wasn’t just members of the media who hated the bill. The bill succeeded in uniting politicians on both sides of the aisle.
For example, former Senate Majority Leader and political leader Loretta Weinberg (D-Bergen) called it a disgrace and urged lawmakers to shut it down.
“This is a complete confidant of OPRA, and Sen. Sarlo has been planning for a long time.” She said this in the post of X. “It has to stop! Don’t let NJ go backwards. Call your senators.”
Meanwhile, Rep. Brian Bergen (R-Mo.), a veteran who serves as party whip in the House, equally vehemently opposed it, saying it would have a chilling effect on public records requests.
“There are meaningful adjustments being made to OPRA,” Bergen told the Post Thursday. “But they took everything too far. When it comes to government, we need to value transparency. People expect it and they deserve it.”
Asked if he thought the proposal would lead to a loss of transparency, Bergen said: “It certainly would.”
“OPRA curbs corruption,” he said. “This bill would reopen the door to widespread corruption. And that’s a bad thing.”
with post wire
