Jackson Township’s document destruction has suddenly reversed itself.
Jackson Township clerks have been replying to OPRA requests saying they can not be filled because the relevant records have been destroyed.
Fortunately, it seems that these records have been magically recovered. When pressed on why records related to litigation were being destroyed, the clerks office responded that they are suddenly no longer so destroyed anymore.
Maybe a team was formed to hand-reassemble the shredded documents? Maybe their reincarnated form is somehow harder to search, possibly because the strips of paper that they have taped together are fragile?
Or maybe their lawyers just told them that actually destroying things was a bad idea.
Which begs the question: was this all a ruse to hide information from the public? Has Jackson made more work for themselves while still being legally required to deliver documents?
And what will happen if the DOJ and AG serve the township with more subpoenas? In fact, has the township already violated the order from the DOJ, requiring that “electronic files not be altered or destroyed”?
A reader sent us the following: an OPRA request for one month’s worth of emails between former Jackson Township Business Administrator Helene Schlegel and Mayor Mike Reina, related to a pending zoning lawsuit against Jackson Township. A simple request, right?
Unfortunately for this requester, these records have left the building. The emails from 2014 were deleted recently pursuant to New Jersey’s Destruction of Public Records Law, which allows government bodies to destroy old records in order to declutter their lives after filing a certificate with the state Division of Record Management.
While the timing of the township’s sudden need to destroy years of records is odd, given the number of legal battles they have just reignited, there is also something that does not spark joy about Jackson’s record disposal filings with the state.
For one, the emails between the Mayor and Business Manager are categorized as “External Correspondence”, despite being entirely internal to Jackson. This is important because other emails may need to be retained for up to seven years.
Secondly, the certificate requires that clerk to sign off that the records in question are not “involved in litigation”, but the request clearly asks for records on the subject of an ongoing lawsuit. In fact, this case is still in the discovery phase, which was just extended by the judge.
With more legal troubles potentially on the horizon, what is Jackson Township trying to get rid of, and why are they doing it so haphazardly?
At this week’s council meeting, Council President Rob Nixon railed against a recent article he claims misrepresented his words (the author of which has responded as well). He also made a simple plea: “Talk to each other”. If you have an issue in the township, it can be solved by “real communication” with “willing partners”.
This statement stands in stark contrast to a sentiment expressed recently by another township head, Mayor Mike Reina: “Game on, gloves off”. After over one year of discussion, Reina and Nixon decided to walk away from an agreed-upon settlement with Agudath Israel about bans on schools, synagogues and dorms, negotiated at practically no cost to the township. Now, after kicking to the curb “communication” and “willing partners”, Mayor Reina sent around an email about the case saying that he is ready to throw down.
The mayor claims this is in the interest of “all our residents”, but is it in the town’s interest to head back into legal and financial uncertainty by putting a case that has come amid somedamningrevelations in the court’s hands and hiring a new legal team on the taxpayer’s dollar while the DOJ and AG hover overhead? Or, given the timing of their sudden change of heart, could this have more to do with Reina and Nixon protecting their political careers after last election season.
In what seems to be headed towards a bruising battle though, both sides are preparing to pull punches. After telling the judge that Jackson has been acting in “bad faith”, Agudath Israel was granted carte blanche to add new charges to their lawsuit in a hearing this week. It remains to be seen what will happen, but this case may get much more complex, especially if the state or federal government decide to join the melee.
A game of tossing around blame has begun in Jackson Township.
Agudath Israel, currently suing Jackson over bans on eruvs, schools, and dormitories, lobbed the first flaming spud last week with a letter blaming the township for unilaterally scuttling the results of over a year of negotiations. The letter to Judge Douglas Alpert, overseeing the case, alleges that the two sides came to an agreement in December that Jackson then ignored and discarded.
Jackson and Agudath Israel were ordered to mediation in August 2017. A few months later, in November 2017, both parties signed a preliminary settlement bringing litigation to a standstill. Jackson would allow an eruv on utility poles while the plaintiffs would not file any motions in court and would “discourage OPRA demands” on Jackson. According to court dockets, since then the parties have met and updated the judge almost monthly as settlement talks progressed on the other matters in the lawsuit.
If one side was to be seen as acting in bad faith, this could definitely raise the ire of the judge who has been spending time on this case for a year and a half. This is exactly what Agudath Israel’s letter suggests, that Jackson participated in negotiation solely to delay the case and seemed to agree to a settlement only to pretend that it never happened. Jackson has yet to throw the blame back, but there is a hearing on March 13th to discuss next steps in the case.
If this sudden turnaround by the township seems surprising, it may actually be a deft political move by Mayor Mike Reina and Council President Rob Nixon. After an election season where everyone was trying to paint each other as being cozy with Orthodox Jews, they may have decided that seeming to support a settlement with Agudath Israel in public would be career suicide.
Possibly Jackson’s politicians felt that any political damage to themselves could be avoided by having a judgement forced on them by the court. Even if the final terms end up worse than those in the settlement they agreed to in December (the judge could, for instance, throw out the ordinances entirely), the Mayor and Council can then point their fingers at Agudath Israel and say they had no choice: “we have to follow what the judge says”. So what if the town ends up with a few more schools or more permissive zoning, they have saved their jobs. Hurrah!
Where it stops, nobody knows
Jackson’s taxpayers have paid little thus far, as Jackson has been using attorneys provided by their insurance. The township’s “free” law firm, Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, is a large multi-state firm with departments that specialize in RLUIPA litigation. According to his bio, the lead attorney representing the township, Howard Mankoff, “in a precedent-setting decision before the Third Circuit, successfully argued that a municipality can exclude houses of worship in order to facilitate economic redevelopment.”
The hot potato has just been passed to them though. On February 26th, Jackson agreed to pay $800 per hour to hire another lawyer, self-proclaimed RLUIPA expert Marci Hamilton, for a minimum of 20 hours. Jackson’s insurance will not be covering this extra expense: the policy covers damages up to $1 million in court and provides that the insurance firm may hire a lawyer to defend the township (the expense of which comes out of Jackson’s final claim), but explicitly states that “No other obligation or liability to pay sums or perform acts or services is covered.”.
The new lawyer contract is open-ended, and if this case heads back to court then the sky is the limit on how many hours might be billed at taxpayer’s expense. Aside from these new costs, if Jackson loses, the penalties and attorney fees (including those of Mr Mankoff and those of the plaintiff which can be awarded in RLUIPA cases) could easily surpass the $1 million dollar insurance limit. Further complicating things, there is the possibility that the NJ Attorney General and the US Department of Justice will step back in, both having subpoenaed township officials over this case in the past.
But take heart, this is all in service of a noble cause: lessening the political blow-back on Reina and Nixon.
At the February 13th meeting, Jackson’s council refused to consider a resolution condemning anti-semitism, with Council President Robert Nixon saying that the council is “legally prohibited from passing a resolution, as it hadn’t issued the proper public notice”.
But is this accurate? It depends who you ask: on the one hand Council President Robert Nixon says that a resolution must be on the public agenda before the meeting.
An entirely different opinion comes out though if you ask someone else, namely Council President Robert Nixon. Here a resolution is walked in during the meeting to oppose a gas tax increase.
After he announces the new resolution, Township Attorney Jean Cipriani backs him up, saying that “the agenda is in control of the chair, and if something happens on an emerging basis or a recent basis there is no problem adding it to the agenda”.
Hopefully all these people can get on the same page next time. While meetings and ordinances up for adoption need to be publicly noticed, the law explicitly states that a resolution “may be finally passed at the meeting at which it is introduced.”
After the lawsuit was filed, Westlake relented on the screened porch, a feature which other houses in the development have as well. However, they asked the court to dismiss the rabbi’s request for access to the gate and construction of a small path leading to the gate as accommodations that these laws do not require them to allow. In an ruling yesterday the judge let most of the counts stand though, dismissing one and consolidating two others, but leaving in counts that would require both the path construction and gate access. The suit will now proceed to discovery and trial unless it is settled first.