Title: Libertarians for Transparent Government v. Cumberland County
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 
State: new-jersey
Issuer: new-jersey Supreme Court
Date: March 7, 2022

Libertarians for Transparent Government v. Cumberland County Annotate this Case Justia Opinion Summary In October 2017, an incarcerated woman filed a lawsuit against Cumberland County and several corrections officers, including Tyrone Ellis, alleging she had been forced to engage in non-consensual sex acts on a regular basis. Plaintiff Libertarians for Transparent Government (Libertarians) obtained minutes of the public meeting of the Board of the Police and Firemen’s Retirement System at which the Board considered Ellis’s application for special retirement. According to the minutes, the County originally sought to terminate Ellis, who had been charged with a disciplinary infraction. When he submitted his resignation, the County warned that it intended to continue to prosecute the disciplinary matter. Ellis, in turn, “agreed to cooperate” with the County’s investigation of four other officers suspected of similar misconduct. “As a result of his cooperation, Cumberland County agreed to dismiss the disciplinary charges and permit Mr. Ellis to retire in good standing” with a reduced pension. Libertarians sent the County an OPRA request seeking, as relevant here, the settlement agreement and Ellis’s “'name, title, position, salary, length of service, date of separation and the reason therefor’ in accordance with N.J.S.A. 47:1A-10.” The County declined to produce the settlement agreement, claiming it was a personnel record exempt from disclosure. In response to the request for information, the County stated in part that “Officer Ellis was charged with a disciplinary infraction and was terminated.” Libertarians filed a complaint in Superior Court, and the trial court ordered the County to provide a redacted version of the settlement agreement. The County appealed, and the Appellate Division reversed the trial court’s judgment. The New Jersey Supreme Court concluded the trial court properly ordered disclosure of a redacted settlement agreement, and the Appellate Division reversed. The Supreme Court reinstated the trial court’s order. Read more Want to stay in the know about new opinions from the Supreme Court of New Jersey? Sign up for free summaries delivered directly to your inbox. Learn More › You already receive new opinion summaries from Supreme Court of New Jersey. Did you know we offer summary newsletters for even more practice areas and jurisdictions? Explore them here . SYLLABUSThis syllabus is not part of the Court’s opinion. It has been prepared by the Office of the Clerk for the convenience of the reader. It has been neither reviewed nor approved by the Court. In the interest of brevity, portions of an opinion may not have been summarized. Libertarians for Transparent Government v. Cumberland County (A-34-20) (084956)Argued September 14, 2021 -- Decided March 7, 2022RABNER, C.J., writing for a unanimous Court. In this appeal, plaintiff Libertarians for Transparent Government seeks a copy of a settlement agreement between a former corrections officer and his employer, defendant Cumberland County. The Court considers whether the agreement should be turned over under the Open Public Records Act (OPRA), N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1 to -13. In October 2017, a woman incarcerated at the Cumberland County Jail filed a lawsuit against the County and several corrections officers, including Tyrone Ellis, alleging she had been forced to engage in non-consensual sex acts on a regular basis. To learn more about the allegations, Libertarians obtained minutes of the public meeting of the Board of the Police and Firemen’s Retirement System at which the Board considered Ellis’s application for special retirement. According to the minutes, the County originally sought to terminate Ellis, who had been charged with a disciplinary infraction. When he submitted his resignation, the County warned that it intended to continue to prosecute the disciplinary matter. Ellis, in turn, “agreed to cooperate” with the County’s investigation of four other officers suspected of similar misconduct. “As a result of his cooperation, Cumberland County agreed to dismiss the disciplinary charges and permit Mr. Ellis to retire in good standing” with a reduced pension. Libertarians sent the County an OPRA request seeking, as relevant here, the settlement agreement and Ellis’s “'name, title, position, salary, length of service, date of separation and the reason therefor’ in accordance with N.J.S.A. 47:1A-10.” The County declined to produce the settlement agreement, claiming it was a personnel record exempt from disclosure. In response to the request for information, the County stated in part that “Officer Ellis was charged with a disciplinary infraction and was terminated.” Libertarians filed a complaint in Superior Court, and the trial court ordered the County to provide a redacted version of the settlement agreement. The County appealed, and the Appellate Division reversed the trial court’s judgment. 465 N.J. Super. 11, 13 (App. Div. 2020). The Court granted certification. 245 N.J. 38 (2021). 1 HELD: Most personnel records are confidential under OPRA. But under the law’s plain language, certain items qualify as a government record including a person’s name, title, “date of separation and the reason therefor.” N.J.S.A. 47:1A-10. To the extent that information appears in a settlement agreement, the record should be available to the public after appropriate redactions are made.1. Under OPRA, “all government records shall be subject to public access unless exempt.” N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1. The statute calls for a careful balancing of the right of access to government records versus the need to protect personal information, and it permits targeted redactions of information that should not be disclosed. See id. at -5(g). Section 10 of OPRA addresses personnel records. Id. at -10. Most are exempt from disclosure under the law, but the statute has three exceptions. Ibid. (pp. 11-12)2. This appeal turns on the first exception, under which “an individual’s name, title, position, salary, payroll record, length of service, date of separation and the reason therefor, and the amount and type of any pension received shall be a government record.” Ibid. A plain reading of section 10 calls for disclosure of a settlement agreement that contains such information once the document has been redacted. (pp. 12-14)3. In Kovalcik v. Somerset County Prosecutor’s Office, the Court determined that, if information within requested personnel records did not fall under section 10’s third exception, it should be redacted, but that the redacted records themselves should be disclosed. 206 N.J. 581, 585-86, 593-95 (2011). Here, part of the settlement agreement that Libertarians seeks contains information covered by section 10’s first exception, and as in Kovalcik, the document is subject to disclosure after it is redacted. Details that are not listed in the exception but constitute personnel records would still be exempt from disclosure. Some requestors may be satisfied with a written summary of information, but OPRA entitles them to press for actual records in many situations. (pp. 14-17)4. Under section 10, the reasons Ellis separated from government service qualify as a “government record.” A settlement agreement that includes those details must therefore be made available to the public once it is redacted. OPRA enables the public to play a role in guarding against corruption and misconduct. Here, the County stated that Ellis was terminated. In reality, he was allowed to retire in good standing with only a partial pension forfeiture. Without access to actual documents in cases like this, the public can be left with incomplete or incorrect information. Libertarians is entitled to a redacted version of the actual settlement document, and the trial court’s award of attorney’s fees to Libertarians as the prevailing party under N.J.S.A. 47:1A-6 is reinstated. (pp. 17-19) The judgment of the Appellate Division is REVERSED.JUSTICES ALBIN, PATTERSON, SOLOMON, and PIERRE-LOUIS join in CHIEF JUSTICE RABNER’s opinion. 2 SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY A- 34 September Term 2020 084956 Libertarians for Transparent Government, a NJ Nonprofit Corporation, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Cumberland County and Blake Hetherington in her official capacity as Custodian of Records for Cumberland County, Defendants-Respondents. On certification to the Superior Court, Appellate Division, whose opinion is reported at 465 N.J. Super. 11 (App. Div. 2020). Argued Decided September 14, 2021 March 7, 2022CJ Griffin argued the cause for appellant (Pashman Stein Walder Hayden, attorneys; CJ Griffin, of counsel and on the briefs).Jeffrey P. Sarvas argued the cause for respondents (Barker, Gelfand, James & Sarvas, attorneys; Jeffrey P. Sarvas, and Vanessa E. James, on the briefs).Alexander Shalom argued the cause for amicus curiae American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey (American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey Foundation, attorneys; Alexander Shalom, Jeanne LoCicero, and Julia T. Bradley, of the New York bar, practicing pursuant to R. 1-21-3(c), on the brief). Bruce S. Rosen submitted a brief on behalf of amici curiae Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press; Advance Publications, Inc.; The Associated Press; The Atlantic Monthly Group LLC; The Center for Investigative Reporting; Gannett; The Media Institute; The National Freedom of Information Coalition; National Journal Group LLC; NBCUniversal Media LLC; The New Jersey Press Association; Radio Television Digital News Association; Society of Professional Journalists; and The Tully Center for Free Speech (McCusker, Anselmi, Rosen, & Carvelli, attorneys; Bruce S. Rosen, on the brief). CHIEF JUSTICE RABNER delivered the opinion of the Court. In this appeal, plaintiff Libertarians for Transparent Government seeks acopy of a settlement agreement between a former corrections officer and hisemployer, defendant Cumberland County. In a separate lawsuit, an inmate at the Cumberland County Jail accusedthe corrections officer of forcing her to engage in non-consensual sex acts inprison. Libertarians learned that the officer had been accused in a disciplinaryaction of “improper fraternization” with two female inmates and bringingcontraband into the jail. He admitted the misconduct and entered into asettlement agreement with the County. 2 Relying on the Open Public Records Act (OPRA), N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1to -13, Libertarians asked the County for the actual settlement agreement. TheCounty declined to turn it over on the ground that it was a personnel record.Instead, the County provided certain details in writing and stated, in particular,that the officer had been “charged with a disciplinary infraction and wasterminated.” That was not true. The officer was allowed to retire in goodstanding and collect a partly reduced pension. Most personnel records are confidential under OPRA. But under thelaw’s plain language, certain items qualify as a government record including aperson’s name, title, “date of separation and the reason therefor.” -- § 10. To Id.the extent that information appears in a settlement agreement, the recordshould be available to the public after appropriate redactions are made . In this case, the trial court properly ordered disclosure of a redactedsettlement agreement, and the Appellate Division reversed. We reinstate thetrial court’s order. I. In October 2017, a woman incarcerated at the Cumberland County Jailfiled a federal lawsuit against the County and several corrections officers,including Tyrone Ellis. Among other things, she alleged that Ellis and otherofficers forced her to engage in non-consensual sex acts on a regular basis. 3 To learn more about the allegations, Libertarians obtained minutes of theMarch 18, 2018 public meeting of the Board of the Police and Firemen’sRetirement System. At the meeting, the Board considered Ellis’s applicationfor special retirement. The minutes revealed that Ellis had been charged in a Preliminary Noticeof Disciplinary Action (PNDA), dated August 23, 2016, “with conductunbecoming . . . related to alleged improper fraternization with inmates andintroduction of contraband into the facility.” Ellis admitted he had“inappropriate relationships with two inmates” and brought contraband into thejail. He did not dispute that he had brought bras, underwear, cigarettes, and acell phone into the prison. According to the minutes, the County originally sought to terminateEllis. When he submitted his resignation, the County warned that it intendedto continue to prosecute the disciplinary matter. Ellis, in turn, “agreed tocooperate” with the County’s investigation of four other officers suspected ofsimilar misconduct. “As a result of his cooperation, Cumberland Countyagreed to dismiss the disciplinary charges and permit Mr. Ellis to retire ingood standing.” As part of a settlement agreement dated March 1, 2017, “allcharges listed on the PNDA were withdrawn.” 4 The minutes also noted that Ellis had served as a corrections officer fortwenty-five years and six months. Because his “misconduct reflected multipleoffenses over an extended period of time and was directly related to his dutiesas a County Correction Officer,” the Board “reduced his service and salary to20 years, the requisite service credit to qualify for a Service retirement.” Inother words, Ellis retired in good standing, and the Board allowed him toreceive a reduced pension. Libertarians sent the County an OPRA request on July 24, 2018. Itasked for three things: the PNDA; the settlement agreement; and Ellis’s“'name, title, position, salary, length of service, date of separation and thereason therefor’ in accordance with N.J.S.A. 47:1A-10.” The County declined to produce the PNDA and the settlementagreement, claiming they were personnel records the law exempts fromdisclosure. As for the third item, the County stated in an email that Officer Ellis was charged with a disciplinary infraction and was terminated. His title was as a Corrections Officer. His yearly salary was $71,575. His date of hire was March 6, 1991. His date of separation was February 28, 2017. As indicated above, the reason for the separation was a disciplinary infraction. [(emphasis added).]The County did not provide redacted versions of the PNDA or the settlementagreement. 5 Libertarians then filed a complaint in Superior Court. The complaintsought access to the settlement agreement under OPRA and the common lawright of access but did not seek a copy of the PNDA. Libertarians asserted thatthe County “misrepresent[ed] the 'reason’ for Ellis’s separation from publicemployment” and withheld a government record that should have beendisclosed. In the alternative, Libertarians asked the court to review the recordin camera and release it in redacted form. The County maintained thesettlement agreement was an exempt personnel record, and that“confidentiality” relating “to the continuing investigation of disciplinaryinfractions” was “also important.” The trial court ordered the County to provide a redacted version of thesettlement agreement. The court found the agreement was “a governmentrecord subject to disclosure under OPRA,” not a personnel record exempt fromdisclosure. After an in camera review of the document, the court heavilyredacted it and removed parts that referred to Ellis’s cooperation with theCounty Prosecutor and his disciplinary infractions. The court also noted thatOPRA’s exemption for records of ongoing investigations did not apply, --- see N.J.S.A. 47:1A-3(a), and that the County “violated OPRA by misrepresentingthe reason for Ellis’s separation” from employment. 6 Because the trial court granted access to the settlement agreement underOPRA, it did not address the common law right of access. The court awardedLibertarians attorney’s fees as the prevailing party under N.J.S.A. 47:1A-6; theparties consented to the amount of the fees, subject to appeal. The County appealed, and the Appellate Division reversed the trialcourt’s judgment. Libertarians for Transparent Gov’t v. Cumberland County, 465 N.J. Super. 11, 13 (App. Div. 2020). The court held that “a settlementagreement resolving an internal disciplinary action against a public employeeis not classified as a government record under OPRA, but instead is apersonnel record exempt from disclosure under section 10 of the statute.” 1Ibid. The court found such records differed from “[s]ettlement agreements bypublic agencies to resolve civil suits,” which “are accessible under OPRA .”Id. at 23. The Appellate Division recognized that although section 10 of OPRAexempts personnel records from disclosure, it also contains an exception for1 As discussed in more detail later, N.J.S.A. 47:1A-10 (section 10) states that personnel records are not “considered . . . government record[s] and shall not be made available for public access.” The section also contains three exceptions; the first declares that “an individual’s name, title, position, salary, payroll record, length of service, date of separation and the reason therefor, and the amount and type of any pension received shall be a government record.” Ibid. 7 certain information Libertarians had requested in this case. Id. at 24.Nonetheless, although the court “acknowledge[d] the matter is not altogetherfree from doubt,” it “conclude[d] OPRA does not generally requiregovernment agencies to make exempt personnel and pension records accessiblein redacted form.” Ibid. “[T]he mention of an employee’s name . . . [and] dateand reason of separation . . . does not make that document a government recordpublicly accessible under OPRA, redacted to exclude all other information.”Id. at 28. The court recognized, however, that allowing agencies to provideinformation rather than actual documents requires “trust [in] what thegovernment” reveals -- a “problem” that “is well-illustrated” by the County’sresponse to Libertarians’ request. Id. at 29. The Appellate Division remanded the matter to the trial court todetermine whether the settlement agreement should be disclosed under thecommon law right of access. Id. at 31. The court also reversed the order forfees. Ibid. We granted Libertarians’ petition for certification. 245 N.J. 38 (2021).We also granted leave to appear as amici curiae to the Reporters Committeefor Freedom of the Press along with thirteen media organizations (ReportersCommittee) and the American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey (ACLU). 8 II. Libertarians urges the Court to reinstate the trial court’s ruling. Itasserts it is entitled to a redacted version of the settlement agreement based ontwo exceptions in section 10. Libertarians argues that Ellis’s “name, title,position, salary, payroll record, length of service, date of separation and thereason therefor, and the amount and type of any pension received” is agovernment record. The statute’s plain language, according to Libertarians,required the County to disclose the settlement agreement with redactions, andnot just a summary of the information. Libertarians also contends that becausepublic entities must provide immediate access to individual employmentcontracts under section 5(e) of OPRA, and because an agreement endingEllis’s employment qualifies as an employment contract, the settlementagreement must be disclosed under another part of section 10. Libertariansstresses that the outcome of this case will have far-reaching consequences fortransparency in policing and sexual abuse in jails. The Reporters Committee and the ACLU support Libertarians’ position.The Committee emphasizes OPRA’s mandate to “segregate” or redact exemptparts of a government record from public access while still allowing access tothe record itself. The Committee also argues that public records laws like 9 OPRA advance the public interest by enabling journalists to report on theconduct of public institutions and employees. The ACLU highlights the importance of transparency in correctionsfacilities, where it contends abuse is rampant and underreported. Public accessto settlement agreements, the organization asserts, will help curb abuse bycreating accountability. Cumberland County argues the judgment of the Appellate Divisionshould be affirmed. The County contends that just because Libertarians isentitled to certain information under section 10, it is not entitled to disclosureof the settlement agreement itself, which is an exempt personnel record. Anoverly broad reading of the exception in section 10, according to the County,would swallow the general rule protecting personnel records from publicaccess. The County also maintains that the agreement is not an “individualemployment contract” subject to disclosure under section 5(e). In addition, the County submits that OPRA protects important privacyinterests of employees and does not substantially impede the public’s interestin access and transparency. 10 III. A. This appeal involves the interpretation of a statute. To understand themeaning of the Open Public Records Act, we look for the Legislature’s intent.See DiProspero v. Penn, 183 N.J. 477, 492-93 (2005). We begin with the textof the statute because the language the Legislature chooses is “generally . . .the best indicator of [its] intent.” Id. at 492. OPRA is designed to provide the public with “ready access togovernment records.” Burnett v. County of Bergen, 198 N.J. 408, 421 (2009).The law declares at the outset that “all government records shall be subject topublic access unless exempt.” N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1. Plus “any limitations on theright of access . . . shall be construed in favor of the public’s right of access.”Ibid. The statute broadly defines the term “government record.” The phraseincludes any documents “made, maintained or kept on file in the course of . . .official [government] business.” Id. § 1.1. In the same section, OPRAexempts more than twenty different types of information from the definition.Ibid. None of them apply here. OPRA also calls for a careful balancing of competing interests -- theright of access to government records versus the need to protect personal 11 information. Burnett, 198 N.J. at 414. One way to achieve that balance isthrough targeted redactions of information that should not be disclosed. Moregenerally, if part of a record is exempt from public access, the recordscustodian is authorized to redact that portion of the document and must then“promptly permit access to the remainder of the record.” N.J.S.A. 47:1A-5(g). Section 10 of OPRA addresses personnel records. Most personnelrecords are exempt from disclosure under the law, but the statute has threeexceptions. Section 10 reads as follows: Notwithstanding the provisions of L. 1963, c. 73 ([ N.J.S.A.] 47:1A-1 et seq.) or any other law to the contrary, the personnel or pension records of any individual in the possession of a public agency, including but not limited to records relating to any grievance filed by or against an individual, shall not be considered a government record and shall not be made available for public access, except that: [1] an individual’s name, title, position, salary, payroll record, length of service, date of separation and the reason therefor, and the amount and type of any pension received shall be a government record; [2] personnel or pension records of any individual shall be accessible when required to be disclosed by another law, when disclosure is essential to the performance of official duties of a person duly authorized by this State or the United States, or when authorized by an individual in interest; and [3] data contained in information which disclose conformity with specific experiential, educational or medical qualifications required for government 12 employment or for receipt of a public pension, but not including any detailed medical or psychological information, shall be a government record. [(emphases added).]This appeal turns on the first exception. In 1974, Governor Byrne issued Executive Order 11, which mirrorssection 10. Exec. Order No. 11 (EO 11) (Nov. 15, 1974), 1 Laws of NewJersey 1974 765. EO 11 exempted personnel records from disclosure under theRight to Know Law, which preceded OPRA. Like OPRA, the executive ordercontained language that parallels section 10 and provided that an individual’sname, date of separation from government service, reasons for separation, andother details “shall be public.” Ibid. B. We review questions of statutory interpretation de novo. See Brennan v.Bergen Cnty. Prosecutor’s Off., 233 N.J. 330, 339 (2018). Our analysis here istethered to the language of the statute. Public agencies have an obligation to disclose “government records.” N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1. And under OPRA, the records themselves -- and not asummary -- must be made available “for inspection, copying, or examination.”Ibid. Custodians, however, must redact parts of a document that are exemptfrom public access before disclosing a government record. Id. § 5(g). 13 Section 10 expressly states that a person’s “date of separation” fromemployment “and the reason therefor . . . shall be a government record.” Id.§ 10. As a result, a plain reading of the text calls for disclosure of a settlementagreement that contains such information once the document has beenredacted. Section 10 can also be analyzed in a more nuanced way that leads to thesame outcome. The provision exempts personnel records, including recordsrelating to a grievance, from disclosure. Ibid. Yet section 10 also provides anexception to that exemption by declaring that a person’s “date of separationand the reason therefor,” along with certain other details, constitute a“government record.” Ibid. Either way, records that contain those details,kept by a public agency, must be made available for inspection withappropriate redactions. This is not the first time the Court has interpreted an exception in section10. In Kovalcik v. Somerset County Prosecutor’s Office, for example, theCourt considered the third exception. 206 N.J. 581 (2011). In that case,Kovalcik sought copies of curricula vitae for two detectives, “as well as a listof any courses relating to interrogation and confessions” they had taken. Id. at584. The prosecutor’s office argued the documents were exempt from 14 disclosure as personnel records under section 10 as well as another ground notrelevant here. Id. at 585-86. In its review of the third exception in section 10, the Court explained theexception “narrow[s] the mandate of disclosure” to “a specific, or particular,educational qualification that is a prerequisite” for a government position “andonly if the record demonstrates compliance with that specific requirement is itsubject to being disclosed pursuant to OPRA.” Id. at 593 (emphasis added).Under the statute’s plain language, the Court observed, a “document in disputecan only be found to be within the exception to the exemption if it discloses,and only to the extent that it discloses, that [a detective] had completedspecific training or education that was required for her employment . . . withthe Prosecutor’s Office.” Id. at 593-94 (emphasis added). Because the Court could not tell from the record whether the documentfell within the exception, it remanded the matter to the trial court “to apply thestatute in accordance with the analysis [it] set forth.” Id. at 594-95. From theCourt’s analysis and instructions, this much is clear: if the documentcontained information that brought it within the third exception, OPRA calledfor its disclosure after any appropriate redactions. See also S. Jersey Publ’gCo. v. Expressway Auth., 124 N.J. 478, 495-96 (1991) (finding that theexemption for personnel records in EO 11 did not prevent the release of 15 minutes that “undoubtedly include the reasons for . . . termination ofemployment”). In this appeal, part of the settlement agreement that Libertarians seekscontains information covered by section 10’s first exception. For similarreasons, the document is subject to disclosure after it is redacted. Our reading of section 10 does not render parts of it superfluous. Thefirst exception, for example, lists specific details that must be disclosed: aperson’s name, title, position, salary, payroll record, length of service, date ofseparation, the reason therefor, and the amount and type of the individual’spension. N.J.S.A. 47:1A-10. Other details that are not listed in the exceptionbut constitute personnel records would still be exempt from disclosure. Other OPRA exemptions raised by the County do not prevent disclosureeither. OPRA safeguards an individual’s personal information when disclosurewould violate a person’s reasonable expectation of privacy. Id. § 1. Section10, once again, specifically calls for the release of the information sought here,and any additional exempt or confidential information would be subject toredaction. Because there is no colorable claim of privacy on this record, thereis no need to apply the balancing test set forth in Burnett. See Brennan, 233 16 N.J. at 333. No reasonable claim of privacy can justify withholding Ellis’ssettlement agreement from disclosure. 2 We recognize that some requestors may be satisfied to receive a writtensummary of information in response to an OPRA request. But OPRA entitlesthem to press for actual government records in many situations, which they canthen inspect. The Legislature acknowledged the distinction between providinginformation and actual records in different settings. The statute, for example,directs that certain “information” about ongoing criminal investigations shallbe made available to the public. Id. § 3(b) (emphasis added). Elsewhere, theLegislature directs that “government records,” as opposed to information, bedisclosed. Id. § 1. Under section 10, the reasons Ellis separated from government servicequalify as a “government record.” A settlement agreement that includes thosedetails must therefore be made available to the public once it is redacted. 32 The County no longer argues that OPRA’s exemption for access to records of investigations in progress applies. See N.J.S.A. 47:1A-3. 3 Libertarians does not argue or suggest that every personnel document with a person’s name or title in it must be available for inspection -- with all but those details redacted -- under the plain language of section 10’s first exception. If faced with that position in another case, courts could readily address it. See Bozzi v. City of Jersey City, 248 N.J. 274, 283 (2021) (noting that courts can 17 In deciding this appeal, we do not rely on case law about settlementagreements that public entities enter into to resolve a lawsuit. See AsburyPark Press v. County of Monmouth, 406 N.J. Super. 1, 9 (App. Div. 2009)(noting that the public has a “right to know the business of the courts” and “aright of access to court documents filed in civil lawsuits”), aff’d, 201 N.J. 5(2010). Nor do we reach plaintiff’s and the ACLU’s argument that asettlement agreement ending a person’s employment is an “employmentcontract,” which an agency must grant “[i]mmediate access” to under section5(e). We begin and end our analysis with the plain language of section 10discussed above. Our reading of that section comports with OPRA’s commandto construe the statute “in favor of the public’s right of access.” N.J.S.A.47:1A-1. OPRA enables the public to play a role in “guarding against corruptionand misconduct.” Burnett, 198 N.J. at 414. This case underscores thoseprinciples. In response to plaintiff’s OPRA request, the County stated thatEllis was terminated because of his misconduct as a corrections officer. Thetrial judge, who reviewed the settlement agreement in camera, called thestatement a misrepresentation. In reality, according to the minutes of thelook to extrinsic evidence if a statute’s plain language would lead to an absurd result); DiProspero, 183 N.J. at 493 (same). 18 Retirement Board, after Ellis admitted that he had “inappropriate relationshipswith two inmates,” he was allowed to retire in good standing with only apartial forfeiture of his pension. Without access to actual documents in caseslike this, the public can be left with incomplete or incorrect information. “[G]overnment works best when its activities are well-known to thepublic it serves.” ---- In that regard, access to public records fosters Ibid.transparency, accountability, and candor. That applies to questions aboutsexual abuse in prison as well as the overall operation of prison facilities andother aspects of government. Libertarians was and is entitled to a redacted version of the actualsettlement document. C. The trial judge awarded attorney’s fees to Libertarians as the prevailingparty under N.J.S.A. 47:1A-6. Afterward, the parties agreed on the amount ofcounsel fees. The trial court’s order, reversed on appeal, is reinstated. We do not consider the scope of the redactions the trial judge approved,which the parties did not appeal. IV. For the reasons set forth above, we reverse the judgment of theAppellate Division. 19 JUSTICES ALBIN, PATTERSON, SOLOMON, and PIERRE-LOUIS join in CHIEF JUSTICE RABNER’s opinion. 20