Critics of the bill say that it is just another measure to reduce government transparency.

New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy signed on Wednesday a controversial bill that would overhaul New Jersey’s Open Public Records Act, despite fierce public opposition from activists who warned the legislation could enable corruption and damage his legacy.

The Governor issued a “signing declaration” along with the legislation NJ S2930(24R), explaining why he approved it, and arguing that changes were relatively modest.

“I am aware that this decision is going to disappoint many in the advocacy community. This includes a number social justice, environmental, and labor organizations. Murphy stated that he had heard directly the objections made to the bill. “I know they were made with good will and good intention,” Murphy said.

Murphy, however, wrote that Murphy’s bill was “relatively modest”, and that it needed to be modernized.

Murphy wrote: “If I thought that this bill was going to enable corruption, I would veto it without hesitation.”

Many advocacy groups, as well as representatives of the press, have stated that this legislation will erode public accessibility to important government documents. Critics have also said that it is the latest measure to make New Jersey less transparent.

The signing statement is not law but it could be used by a judge to interpret it.

Lobbyists from county and local government have been the main proponents of this bill. They claim that records custodians face unreasonable and commercial requests made by a few people. The bill’s committee meetings were dominated by critics, who believed that New Jersey officials were using anecdotal information to tighten up on what should be considered public information.

The legislation is controversial because it would stop the practice of “fee-shifting” where governments are required to pay “reasonable legal costs” for anyone who wins a court case challenging a record denial. The judge would be the one to decide if the denial of records was done in “bad faith”, “unreasonably” or if the government agency violated the law “knowingly or with willfulness”.

The critics argue that it would discourage governments from complying to legitimate requests for public records, knowing that they would be less likely to face challenges in court or before the State’s Government Records Council. The critics also claimed that it would reduce access to records because lawyers wouldn’t be as willing to take precedent cases where it wasn’t clear whether or not the records sought should be made public.

In a telephone interview, CJ Griffin, an attorney who represents clients in cases involving public records, stated that “New Jersey will be less transparent.” “It is a stain [on Murphy’s] legacy, and I think that progressive people are mostly happy about it. This is something historic and deeply problematic that will undoubtedly lead to these towns and counties taking full advantage of the grave problems with the bill.

Murphy, in his statement, defended the fee shifting provision. He wrote that “local officials” argue that the provision incites litigation unnecessarily when municipal and county clerks try their best to adhere to the statute and deny access is inadvertent.

Murphy also stressed the fact that the bill provides funding for towns to make public documents available online.

Other controversial provisions include:

Making it more difficult for the government to charge special fees to meet requests, and shifting the burden of proof to the requester.

Allow the government to sue and limit records requests by requesters if it can be shown that there is an “intent” to significantly impair government operations.

Asking for more specific information when searching emails or other communications of government officials.

Companies can pay an extra fee to have their requests expedited.

Access to metadata is restricted in government files except for the portion “that identifies the authorship, the identity of the editor, and the time of the change.”

The public record request does not allow anyone to distribute “any indecent, graphic or explicit images” of a subject’s intimate parts without the consent of that person.

The bill also funds the Government Records Council with $6 million and expands it to include hearings on appeals. The number of members from the public would go up to eight. Public members would be nominated and recommended by the legislative leaders and the governor. They would receive a modest salary and no longer be prohibited from holding public jobs.

The bill has been portrayed by critics as the most recent and severe measure in recent years to make New Jersey’s government and political process opaque. Murphy has not said much about the bill since it passed the Legislature in late January, but he did meet with its opponents to hear their concerns.

Recently, lawmakers relaxed their financial disclosure requirements, so they don’t have to disclose their homes or second homes unless they make money from renting them. They did not change the vague income disclosure requirement, where legislators would check boxes indicating the amount of money they made from their job. The top category was “above $50,000.”

The “Daniel’s Law,” passed in 2020 after a man who had a grudge towards Salas shot and killed Daniel Anderl’s father, Judge Esther Salas, it has caused bureaucratic problems throughout the state. It requires the redactions of phone numbers and addresses of judges and law enforcement officials.

The “Elections Transparency Act” signed by Murphy in 2011 increased campaign contribution limits, while creating some disclosure loopholes.

The law created a new category for independent expenditure groups, which are subject to less stringent reporting requirements than candidate PACs and committees. They no longer have to report contributions in the final days of an electoral campaign. This allowed a shadowy South Jersey Democratic group to spend almost a quarter million dollars in November to promote allegedly fake candidates without disclosing its source of income until long after the election. Jersey Freedom, whose ads were intended to attract Republican votes to “conservative independent candidates”, was funded by a South Jersey Democratic Super PAC and a Carpenters Union super PAC.

Progress