November 27, 2013 THE VILLADOM TIMES I • Page 3 Midland Park Resident charges board with OPRA violations A Midland Park resident is accusing the Midland Park Board of Education of violating the Sunshine Law and the public’s right to access of public information, calling the board’s practices a game of “hide the ball.” David Opderbeck has filed a formal complaint in N.J. Superior Court claiming that the board’s past and continued refusal to provide the public with attachments to its meeting agendas prior to board meetings violates the Open Public Meetings and Public Records acts. He notes that other neighboring towns, such as Ridgewood, Waldwick and Wyckoff, make available such attach- ments along with the agenda. A professor of law at Seton Hall University Law School who specializes in information law and policy, Opderbeck further notes that the board would incur no significant cost or inconvenience if it provides the information since it is already stored in electronic form, which is the way it is distributed to board members. The information requested to accompany the agenda would include “attachments, reports and other related or referenced documents,” and could be posted on the board’s website prior to the meetings. The attachments would serve to better inform the public in following the board’s deliberations and provide specific information should residents wish to ask questions or make state- ments at public meetings. Opderbeck says in his complaint that when his wife requested the agenda attachments for a May 28, 2013 meeting at which a number of issues relating to school activities in which their children were engaged were scheduled to be discussed, she was told that attachments to the agenda are not made available to the public until after the meeting is concluded and only pursuant to a written request under the Open Public Records Act (OPRA). Superintendent of Schools Dr. Marie Cirasella further advised Mrs. Opderbeck in a May 29 email that the board “cannot and should not rely on information provided by board meeting attendees during open ses- sion - it is the school administration’s responsibility and charge to do so,” the complaint notes. The board’s position, through its attorney, Stephen Fogarty, has been that it is not required to provide attach- ments with meeting agendas, and that in fact an agenda is not required to be supplied at all if annual notice of meetings is published, the resident’s complaint says. Opderbeck contends in his brief that after repeated discussions with Fogarty, the attorney notified him that the board had agreed to draft a policy by which it would provide all the attachments with published agendas, except for documents required to be redacted or with- held by law. That policy was in fact presented for first reading at a board meeting on Sept. 17, 2013, but it was immediately publicly opposed by board members. At the second reading of the proposed policy, the board decided to let the existing policy stand, opting to drop any proposed changes from consideration altogether. In opposing the policy amendments, trustees won- dered if enough office staff “would be available to handle the posting of the additional documents,” and whether “it would confuse the public to see different versions of a proposal prior to actual adoption.” Opderbeck questioned the board’s motives last week. “Putting aside the legal technicalities in this argument, why wouldn’t this body want to release the information? It’s a question of trust and honesty beyond the law. I hon- estly don’t understand,” Opderbeck concluded. Oral arguments in front of Judge Peter Doyne are scheduled to be heard on Dec. 23 in Hackensack.