OPMA

My Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA) Complaint

When I arrived at the July 24th meeting of the SOMA Board of Ed, I expected to watch the Board discuss and then select one of the four Plans to develop Ritzer Field (A, B, C2.0 or D2.0) after the public had a chance to weigh in. However, early in the meeting both the Superintendent and Board president announced that the Board had, prior to the meeting, decided on Plan D2.0. During Public Speaks, when I addressed the Board, I objected to the fact that the Board had made its decision "in secret" before the meeting. The Board president interjected that the decision was "based on our policies". That didn't seem right to me, so during the next two weeks I spent a fair amount of time researching the topic of non-public decisions by public bodies and I became familiar with the Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA) and the landmark legal ruling on OPMA by the New Jersey Supreme Court, Polillo v Deane. The result is a complaint that I submitted to the Board's attorney on August 8th, that alleges a violation of the OPMA by the Board, when it deliberated and decided on Plan D2.0 to turf Ritzer Field, behind closed doors. If the complaint is not resolved in two weeks time, it will turn into a lawsuit in New Jersey Superior Court.

"the right of the public to be present at all meetings of public bodies, and to witness in full detail all phases of the deliberation, policy formulation, and decision making of public bodies, is vital to the enhancement and proper functioning of the democratic process" -- from the Open Public Meetings Act.