January 15, 2014 THE VILLADOM TIMES I • Page 3 Midland Park Board awaits final ruling on school’s OPRA violations The Midland Park Board of Education is awaiting a final order from the Court before deciding whether to appeal a Superior Court judge’s decision forcing the board to include all attachments with its meeting agendas. The board would have 45 days from the final entry of judgment to file its appeal. Board President William Sullivan said the board was waiting to receive “the order of conformity” setting the specifics, but had meanwhile it had included 140 pages of attachments and support material documents with the electronic agenda for its Jan. 7 meeting. He said that quite a few interested groups have reached out to the district expressing their concern with Judge Doyne’s decision. Following oral arguments presented on Dec. 23, Judge Peter Doyne agreed with a 2009 Appellate Division deci- sion, that the Open Public Meeting Act (OPMA) “creates a strong presumption of access to the meetings of public bodies, allowing the public to view all meetings ‘at which any business affecting the public is discussed or acted upon in any way.” “I think the court has vindicated the public’s right to participate fully in local government. I hope the board will now move forward towards a more open and productive relationship with the public,” said Midland Park resident David Opderbeck, who filed the complaint against the board last November . Opderbeck is a law professor at Seton Hall University Law School and the principal of The Opderbeck Law Firm. “As the court found, ‘[t]here exists a significant public interest in ensuring the open, transpar- ent, and public review of matters discussed by the Board consistent with the legislative intent pursuant to OPRA, OPMA, and the common law right of access,” Opderbeck pointed out. “Against this strong policy in favor of access, defen- dant has been unable to articulate any persuasive reason- ing 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 produced in electronic form for the Board members and are necessary for the public to understand the agenda. The public cannot be ‘overloaded’ with information concerning 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. In his complaint, Opderbeck claimed that the board’s past and continued refusal to provide the public with attachments to its meeting agendas prior to board meetings violated the Open Public Meetings and Public Records (continued on page 24)