SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-5001-16T2

JOHN PAFF,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

TOWNSHIP OF MOORESTOWN and

PATRICIA L. HUNT in her

capacity as Records Custodian

for the Township of

Moorestown,

Defendants-Respondents.

_______________________________

Argued June 6, 2018 – Decided July 11, 2018

Before Judges Currier and Geiger.

On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, 

Law Division, Burlington County, Docket No. 

L-0340-16.

Michael J. Zoller argued the cause for 

appellant (Pashman Stein Walder Hayden, PC, 

attorneys; CJ Griffin, of counsel and on the 

briefs; Michael J. Zoller, on the briefs).

Kelly A. Grant argued the cause for 

respondents (Capehart Scatchard, PA, 

attorneys; Anthony T. Drollas, Jr., of counsel 

and on the brief; Kelly A. Grant, on the 

brief).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." 

Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding only on the 

parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.
2 A-5001-16T2

PER CURIAM

Plaintiff John Paff appeals from the June 13, 2017 order 

dismissing his claim under the Open Public Records Act (OPRA), 

N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1 to -13. Pursuant to our recent determination in 

Libertarians for Transparent Gov't v. Gov't Records Council, 453 

N.J. Super. 83, 92 (App. Div.), certif. denied, ___ N.J. ___ 

(2018), holding draft meeting minutes are not subject to disclosure 

under OPRA, we affirm.

In December 2015, plaintiff filed an OPRA request with

defendant Township of Moorestown for the minutes, agenda, and 

notices regarding the Ethical Standards Board meeting of October 

2012. In response, defendant Patricia Hunt, the Township's records 

custodian, provided the Board's meeting notice and agenda but 

advised that minutes from the October 2012 meeting were not yet 

approved and, therefore, would not be released.

Plaintiff filed a complaint and order to show cause, alleging 

defendants violated OPRA, the Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA), 

N.J.S.A. 10:4-1 to -21, and the common law right to access public 

records. The Board convened to approve the meeting minutes in 

March 2016 and provided them to plaintiff after receiving the 

complaint.

After considering the parties' oral arguments, the trial 

judge issued a comprehensive twenty-five page written decision on 
3 A-5001-16T2

May 26, 2017. He determined the unapproved, draft meeting minutes 

did not constitute "government records" under OPRA and, therefore,

were not subject to disclosure. However, the judge did find 

defendants violated OPMA by failing to make the meeting minutes 

"promptly available." He directed defendants to approve all future 

meeting minutes either at their annual reorganizational meeting 

or within thirty days of an OPRA request. The judge declined to 

award counsel fees, stating "[b]ecause injunctive relief is the 

appropriate remedy and OPMA contains no provision concerning 

counsel fees, the Court finds no basis to award Plaintiff fees." 

On appeal, plaintiff argues unapproved meeting minutes are 

government records subject to OPRA and, therefore, the trial court 

erred in not requiring their disclosure. We review a trial court's 

denial or approval of a request for access to public records under 

OPRA de novo. Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP v. N.J. Dept. of Law & 

Pub. Safety, 421 N.J. Super. 489, 497 (App. Div. 2011). 

OPRA was created to promote government transparency and 

public knowledge of public affairs by requiring public entities 

to make government records available to the public. N.J.S.A.

47:1A-1; see also O'Boyle v. Borough of Longport, 218 N.J. 168, 

183-84 (2014). Under the statute, all government records are 

subject to disclosure unless they meet one of the defined 
4 A-5001-16T2

exemptions. N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1; see also Brennan v. Bergen Cty. 

Prosecutor's Office, ___ N.J. ___, (2018) (slip op. at 8).

We recently considered the issue of whether draft or 

unapproved meeting minutes are subject to disclosure under OPRA

or considered "advisory, consultative, or deliberative" material 

exempted from the definition of a government record. N.J.S.A. 

47:1A-1.1. In Libertarians, we stated "the inherent nature of a 

draft document as both advisory and requiring deliberation prior 

to approval, compels the conclusion that draft minutes are 

'advisory, consultative, deliberative material,' and are not 

subject to disclosure under OPRA as a government record." 453 

N.J. Super. at 92 (citing N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1.1).

Here, the draft minutes requested by plaintiff were not 

subject to OPRA, and, therefore, defendants' non-production of 

those records was not a violation of that statute. However, as 

the trial judge determined, the failure to make those minutes 

"promptly available" was a violation of OPMA.

Under OPMA, minutes from public meetings must be "promptly 

available." N.J.S.A. 10:4-14. We previously have interpreted this 

language as requiring government bodies to make the minutes from 

a public meeting available prior to the next scheduled public 

meeting. See Liebeskind v. Mayor & Mun. Council of Bayonne, 265 

N.J. Super. 389, 394-95 (App. Div. 1993). The release of minutes 
5 A-5001-16T2

more than three years after the meeting is unreasonable regardless 

of the function of the particular Board. See Kean Fed'n of 

Teachers v. Morell, 448 N.J. Super. 520, 531 (App. Div. 2017), 

rev'd in part and aff'd as modified in part, ___ N.J. ___ (2018)

(cautioning "[r]easonableness must remain the touchstone when 

assessing the promptness of a public entity's actions [under 

OPMA]"). However, the violation of OPMA does not trigger a

statutory award of counsel fees.

Affirmed.