From: Brian Alota Sent: Monday, January 28, 2019 11:05 AM To: ‘Alyssa Bongiovann| Subject: FW: City of Hoboken, NJ - Breach of Nide's Terms of Service From: Vijay Chaudhuri Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2019 11:23 AM To: Brian Aloia Ce: David Gonzalez ; Ravinder Bhalla Subject: Re: City of Hoboken, NU - Breach of Nixle’s Terms of Service Can they submit it in writing Sent from my iPhone On Jan 24, 2019, at 11:16 AM, Brian Aloia wrote: | spoke with Suzanne Goldberg of legal, all is good. Matter closed, carry on, they agree with our opinion, Brian Get Outlook for Android From: David Gonzalez Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2019 7:15:03 PM To: Vijay Chaudhuri Ce: Brian Aloia Subject: Re: City of Hoboken, NJ - Breach of Nixle's Terms of Service Sorry about that. I assumed that you were going to follow up with our legal team to coordinate a time 781.859.4138 is legals number. Qutlook for iOS From: Vijay Chaudhuri Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2019 6:10 PM To: David Gonzalez Ce: Brian Aloia ‘Subject: RE: City of Hoboken, NJ Breach of Nixle's Terms of Service 1 | | | |David, could you please provide Brian the phone number and contact person from your legal team? We Were copied on an email to them but there was no phone number. Thank you. ‘From: David Gonzalez Sent: Saturday, January 19, 2019 12:32 PM To: Hoboken2ND_GMAIL Ce: jengiattino6 ; RRamos_personal ; Jerry Lore <.lore@hobokennj,gov>; Brian Aloia ; Vijay Chaudhuri ‘Subject: RE: City of Hoboken, NJ - Breach of Nixle's Terms of Service ‘Thank you for the in depth info. | connected Brian and Vijay with our legal team, Please let me know if there is anything else that | can assist with, Have a great weekend, David ‘From: Tifenie Fisher (mailozhoboken2nd@zmaiicom) —~=~=~S~*S*~S Sent: Friday, January 18, 2019 6:02 PM To: David Gonzalez Ce: jengiattino6' ; ‘Brian Aloia' cbalola@hobokenni.gov Subject: RE: City of Hoboken, NJ - Breach of Nixle's Terms of Service > 'RRamos_personal’ ; ‘Vijay Chaudhuri? Hi David, ical back and forth on this issue As | mentioned In my previous note, you will see some continued pol given you have members of one branch of our local government — the legislative, expressing concern that another branch ~ the executive ~is in violation of your terms. If you could just make sure ail of these communications get to your legal team, we would appreciate it. Our request is that your legal ‘team determine whether or not the Content of the messages violates provisions of sections Conduct |and Prohibited Communication in your Terms of Service. | will be sending a follow up letter to further clarify our position on the language in question. Addressing briefly a few of Vijay's points below: ‘+ Idid not violate OPMA by sending my email, As mentioned in my original correspondence, in my first email which was meant to include all of my council colleagues who wanted to be party to the complaint, | specifically noted that all those ec’d could not engage in a discussion by replying all to the email specifically because of OPMA, Please note this isa standard practice in Hoboken including many emails sent from Vijay himself. In the next, as specifically noted, and all further communications | reduced the number of council members to four specifically for this purpose. ‘+ With regard to Hoboken’s corporation counsel. Ultimately they represent the entire city as Vilay states. But it becomes more difficult, and potentially conflicted, when they have to represent two different sides of an issue, In this situation, |s made worse by the subjective nature of the ‘communications that are being questioned. ‘+ On behalf of the City Council members who believe the Nixle Terms of Service have been breached, | have expressed skepticism of the opinion provided by the Hoboken Corporation Counsel not only because of what we perceive to be an embedded conflict, but also just on the merit of the opinion, The opinion, and the follow up email from Corporation Counsel {on which you were cc’d), all but ignore Nixle’s Content restrictions and provide no analysis of the questionable Content within the messages~ which isthe crux of our concern. The legal opinion only states the following sentence “I do not find that these communications were harmful, tortious, defamatory, libelous, discuss incite or otherwise solicit illegal activity or are fraudulent, deceptive or misleading.” This effe ly amounts to a personal opi n without any supporting evidence. ‘+ Vijay is factually correct in that neither the Corporation Counsel nor the Business Administrator signed the resolution given the above. + Lwill agree that | do not pretend to represent the position of the administration, | am representing the position of the City Council members who joined this complaint with Nix. * Finally, as we said specifically in our initial email and contrary to what Vijay supposes, we actually believe Nixle is a critical information tool for our community and want to ensure that regardless of the outcome the City of Hoboken and its residents will still benefit from its use. Vijay's final commentstry to shift the emph: is away from the true issue which is the City of Hoboken should not use a critical emergency and community alert system for political attacks and propaganda,