Maureen Hassett

Senior Vice President, Governance/Public Information

New Jersey Economic Development Authority
PO Box 990, Trenton, NJ 08625-0990
36 West State Street, Trenton, NJ 08625
RE: Tuesdays meeting on Revel Application
Dear Ms. Hassett:
We represent UNITE HERE and its researcher Ben Begleiter. On December 16,
2009, he requested records concerning Revels pending application to your agency for
financial support. He was asked to modify his request and did so by letter of December
22, 2009. Despite the passage of the 7-day deadline in the Open Public Records Act
(N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1 et seq.), he still has not received any of the requested documents. Yet
apparently the agency board is considering taking action on this item next Tuesday, even
though if he had the information requested he might have been able to persuade the
agency board to reject or impose conditions on approval. We believe acting on the
application thus would be improper.
In several cases courts have enjoined public agencies from rendering decisions
where they had not yet complied with their legal duties to provide records on the subject
at hand. Title Guarantee v. NLRB, 407 F.Supp. 498, 508 (S.D. N.Y. 1975)(To deprive
plaintiff the opportunity to review the requested material prior to the hearing might
effectively foreclose any value in the disclosure ordered by this court. * * * [T]he court
believes that if the policy of the Act [FOIA] is to have any real value, the plaintiff is
entitled to his discovery prior to the administrative action.); St. Elizabeth Hosp. v.
NLRB, 407 F.Supp. 1357 (D. Ill. 1976)(similar, also enjoining agency from reaching a
decision until FOIA request fulfilled). See also MacEwan v. Holm, 359 P.2d 413, 420
(Or. 1961)(The need for data to serve the purposes we have mentioned above may be
just as great when the data are in a raw or tentative state as when they are fully digested
and memorialized by some ultimate official action. In some instances incompetence or
dishonesty in public office may best be discovered at the preliminary stage when the
officials in charge are merely preparing for final action.); Bartels v. Roussel, 303 So.2d
833, 837-38 (La. App. 1974)(We find the rule espoused in MacEwan, above, is
eminently sound and adopt it in all respects save that we disagree that the right to
examination may be deferred if a document is in fact a public document. We so conclude
because the right of the public to be adequately informed is of fundamental
importance.); Mo. Protection & Advocacy Serv. v. Allan, 787 S.W.2d 291, 283 (Mo. App.
1990); Gold v. McDermott, 347 A.2d 643, 646 (Conn. 1975); Athens Observer v.
Anderson, 263 S.E.2d 128, 129 (Ga. 1980)(To restrict the scope of public records as

the state insists would unduly suppress public access to information during a time when
decisions of public importance are being considered and can be addressed.).
Please confirm that the matter will be tabled until after his OPRA request has been
met.