February 5, 2014 THE VILLADOM TIMES I • Page 7 Board of education votes 8-1 to appeal OPRA ruling Seeking to set legal precedent statewide, the Midland Park Board of Education last week voted to authorize its attorney to appeal a Superior Court judge’s decision on how the board should comply with the Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA) and Open Public Records Act (OPRA). In a final decision rendered Jan. 6 on a challenge of the board’s OPRA practices brought by resident David Opderbeck, Bergen County Superior Court Judge Peter Doyne ruled the board must post along with its public agenda “copies of any appendices, attachments, reports and other documents referred to in the agenda.” Docu- ments deemed exempted or privileged under OPMA and OPRA are excluded. “It’s an unpublished decision that applied only to Mid- land Park. We feel we need additional clarification,” said Board President William Sullivan. “The decision leaves a lot open; we’re still getting challenges for what we are posting,” he added. Trustee Tim Thomas was the dissenting vote in the 8-1 board decision to appeal. “The judge’s final order rejected much of Mr. Opder- beck’s argument. Specifically, materials that are deemed to be privileged or that fall within an OPRA exemption regarding materials believed to be deliberative may be excluded from a posted agenda without violating the order. I can live with this compromise, and so should Mr. Opderbeck,” he explained. “It has also needlessly cost the taxpayers thousands of dollars…monies that should have been used to benefit the students of Midland Park. Furthermore, I completely agree with my fellow BOE trustees that Judge Doyne’s ruling is wrong and unfairly imposed only on the Mid- land Park Board of Education (his order does not apply to any other elected body in NJ). I also agree with the board that an Appellate Court decision would remove all ambiguity regarding Judge Doyne’s opinion.” Opterdeck had sought to have a log listing of the excluded documents included with the agenda, and asked that “claims of privilege or confidentiality be based on particularized facts,” nor “merely because such docu- ments fall within a general category of documents.” The court did not impose this requirement. “It is disappointing, and frankly I think inexcusable, that the board has chosen to waste public resources in fur- ther efforts to deprive parents and the general public of information about the governance of our public schools. It is a shame that it took a court injunction to obtain agenda attachments from this board. That shame is compounded by this decision to prolong litigation through an appeal,” countered Opderbeck after the meeting. “Nothing good comes of government secrecy, as current events at the state and national levels demonstrate. I look forward to addressing this issue in the Appellate Division and, if necessary, in the New Jersey Supreme Court.” Opder- beck is a law professor at Seton Hall University Law School and the principal of The Opderbeck Law Firm. Business Administrator/Board Secretary Stacy Garvey said the board had spent $15,277 as of Dec. 31, 2013 in legal fees for litigation of the Opderbeck vs. Mid- land Park BOE case. She said she did not have an esti- mate on the cost of the appeal, though she said it would be moderate because much of the work has already been done. In his complaint, Opderbeck claimed the board’s past and continued refusal to provide the public with attach- ments to its meeting agendas prior to board meetings vio- lated the Open Public Meetings and Public Records acts. He said attachments to the agenda were not made avail- able to the public until after the meeting was concluded and only pursuant to a written request under OPRA. The board contended that some supplementary agenda items could not be made public prior to meetings because they may have contained protected or confidential infor- mation. In his decision following oral arguments by both sides, Judge Doyne said that “defendant (the board) has been unable to articulate any persuasive reasoning why the attachments should not be posted with the agendas prior to board meetings. The only justification offered is the lack of relevant case law and a prior opinion of the Attorney General. These attachments are already pro- duced in electronic form for the board members and are necessary for the public to understand the agenda. The public cannot be ‘overloaded’ with information concern- ing the workings of their governmental and municipal entities. While cognizant exemptions or privileges may apply to certain attachments, absent the same, the public has a right to know and receive the full agenda prior to any meeting,” Judge Doyne opined.