On 06/27/2024, NJ21st sent an OPRA request to BHPSNJ and the Township requesting the following information:
Copies of all emails from June 1 2024 to June 27th 2024 Subject: Lease between the BOE and Township for Lower Columbia.
The most recent version of the lease agreement on Columbia was provided to the BHPSNJ BOE.
This OPRA request was submitted after our questions to the township on three areas went unanswered:
District Response to the Request:
We received an overly redacted set of emails that provided no information from the District (3 days after the deadline). We are also unclear whether emails from all BOE Members were actually included.
We then noticed that the Business Administrator is still seeking guidance from the Attorneys the BOE replaced as Board Attorneys – one of the many reasons for the replacement is the demonstrated incompetence surrounding the guidance the firm provided to the District on OPRA requests. We suspect the business administrator doesn’t care and simply wants to go to the law firm that will give him the answer he wants to hear, and the rules don’t matter.
Lastly, we did not get a copy of the lease agreement the Township is asking everyone to support. Again, this agreement does not involve any vendors and was already reviewed by the Board—there is no reason for it not to be available for the public to review. The Township Attorney (recently hired) seems to have slapped the “Draft” label on there and threw this agreement into a process he knew would provide both the Town and the District justification to refuse to provide a copy of the agreement.
Township Response
The Township responded to our request 15 days after the deadline. One reason for the delay was that Town Council members did not get back to the OPRA custodian—it is not clear why the Township is unable to simply pull the emails from the server. Why would you ask Town Council members for the email- what if they deleted them? We thought that perhaps the request only connects to personal accounts while township emails are pulled from the server. I asked the OPRA custodian for clarification on the practice. She indicated that it is normal practice to ask Council members for responsive documents instead of having IT do an independent search. There are inherent issues with this approach, the first being a potential conflict of interest, so we asked if she could have IT run the search for this request and other requests moving forward.
The emails received from the Township were unredacted and included an exchange between Mr. Hyman and the Recreation Chair that left more questions than answers and seemed politically motivated (discussed below).
The township also used the “this is a draft” reason for not providing the lease agreement they are asking everyone to support. We asked the OPRA Custodian to ask the mayor to release the lease agreement so that the public can view what she is asking everyone to vote for.
Now onto the Content of the emails….
On the issue of liability, the Recreation Chair stated:
I need to confirm what I’m about to say, so don’t hold me to it . .. I’m pretty sure we discussed the liability with the way the property is currently and I do believe that we were told that someone “could” sue both parties (BoE and Township) since the property is owned by both but the Township would assume first line of liability since we have the lease. That is a loophole that someone can use “if” something catastrophic happens. I know from my days on the board of the BHYSC that someone broke their arm, but the BHYSC insurance covered the costs. Any organization that uses any field in town is required to provide a COI before being authorized to use the field. When the turf is installed we can put a sign up that says something to the effect “you assume risk if you are not authorized to be on the field” … or something like that.
This discussion has been going on for years, and it is amazing that neither Mr. Hyman nor the Recreation chair are clear on liability, which likely means the lease agreement does not explicitly state who holds liability. The response one would expect is a reference to which parties hold liability and to what extent, perhaps even a “hold harmless” clause.
On the issue of why prior boards have rejected this, the Recreation Chair writes:
It hasn’t been rejected. I’ve worked very closely with the BoE for the past 6+ years on this project. Two years ago the BoE was asked if the property can be given to the Township (since we’ve maintained it for so long) and that was not supported. That is why a lease agreement was drafted. It’s been a roller coaster since last year with feedback I’ve heard–one day the board supports it, the next day they don’t. I’ve heard the board is afraid the town will sell the property to a developer and needs the property to put an addition on CI‘1S with the growth of the town. Both are preposterous. How will you use that property for an addition to CMS with the elevation? Are you going to take away your fields and basketball courts for the kids? No offense Jordan but, to me, if we needed more school space just test Mountainside we can’t share GL anymore. Honestly, I don’t know how anyone can object to the lease agreement or turf. The Township has invested hundreds of thousands of dollars in Lower Columbia over the years and wants to continue to do that. The BoE has always been given priority and we wilI continue to do so.
This feels like a somewhat disingenuous response – six separate Boards have discussed this issue, and it has not gone through. After six separate Boards have looked at this, suddenly, THIS Board is the issue.
The recreation chair indicates that the BOE is afraid the Township will sell the property as a “ridiculous concern,” but no BOE Member has ever stated that publicly. While she speaks about the amount of money the Town has invested into the fields, she fails to mention the revenue the Recreation department has gained through fees and sales. We understand that residents have asked specifically for financials connected to the Recreation Department and are waiting to hear back. The emails also make no mention of any revenue sharing with the District. The Recreation department should, of course, receive revenue from its programming to support its’ mission – but so should students. This lease involves District property, so there should be some benefit to students.
On the issue of Funding & Length of Agreement:
The project will be fully funded by the Recreation Commission
Trust. The estimate for the drainage and turf is
-$900,000. Donations and grants $600,000. Rec Trust balance is over $1M at the present time. Annual maintenance is -$10K which will be funded by the Rec Comm. The Athletic Dir agreed to do the bounce test/levelling since they invested in the machine.
However, later on she states
Unfortunately the state requires a lease term of 25 years in order to apply for certain grants.
In other words the funding is not yet secured and would only be known after the agreement is signed. Additionally, the Township has not yet pointed directly to where the funds for the project are.
Although, we are not clear as to why a lease is necessary to apply for the grants. Can the Township and District submit a joint request and obtain funding assuming a turf field is what the District feels is in it’s best interest?
There is no way a BOE that thinks clearly would approve this. An agreement without clarity on liability or revenue sharing that locks the District into a 25-year commitment is a bad practice – especially when a significant portion of the funding is contingent on grant funding that has not been approved and cannot be approved until the 25 year commitment is made. It would lead to suspicions of motivations surrounding the approval of such an agreement.
So no Mayor, no one believes anything “nefarious” is going on – people can believe this is not a good deal without being the paranoid collective you try to spin them as. However, the fact that the Township will not share the actual agreement while, at the same time putting the issue on the ballot should raise suspicions. How can you ask people to vote for something you are not allowing them to read?
And yes, Mr. Foster, there is an answer to the question of “Why would anyone be against this.”
Reasonable people can disagree on the merits of a turf field but for the Recreation Department and Town Council to spin this land transfer as a “no-brainer” that only crazy people would be opposed to with very legitimate concerns at play and no lease agreement available for public review while asking them to support it via ballot seems like a cynical play at a land grab.
With all this in mind, how are Residents Expected to Vote on a Ballot Question when they cannot see the agreement?
Here are the email exchanges:
One thought on “More Information – Same Questions on CMS Field Referendum Ballot Question”