Trinity Church v. Comer

Tags

First Amendment, Free Exercise Clause

On June 26, 2017 the Supreme Court of the United States issued its opinion in, Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Carol S. Comer, Director, Missouri Department of Natural Resources.  This case dealt with whether or not the Department’s policy to categorically disqualify churches and other religious organizations from receiving certain grant money violated the Church’s rights under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.  In a 7-2 decision the Court ruled that denying the grant money to the Church, “simply because of what it is – a church” violated the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.

This is the most recent in a long history of cases which deals with seemingly contradictory rights governmental agencies are forced to balance.  In this case specifically, the rights granted by the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment were balanced against a government’s attempt to avoid violating the Establishment Clause. This case should cause any municipality that issues grants to reevaluate their policies to ensure compliance with the newly issued case law.  In addition, the outcome of this case may cause the State of New Jersey to adjust its policies when issuing grants, which could in turn increase the competition for limited grant money by opening up the pool of possible recipients.

You should review this case with your municipal attorney for additional information on how this recent decision will impact your municipality.

Contact:  Frank Marshall, Esq., League Staff Attorney, fmarshall@njslom.org, 609-695-3481 x. 137.

Advertisements

State Budget Takes Shape, Transitional Aid Reduced, and Votes on Thursday

Tags

SFY'18, State Budget, Transitional Aid

On Monday in Trenton, both the Assembly Appropriations Committee (A-5000)  and the Senate Budget and Appropriations Committee (S-18)  released identical versions of an Appropriations Act, meant to govern State spending during the 2018 Fiscal Year (SFY ’18), which begins on July 1. The bills would further reduce Transitional Aid by $6 million. The Governor, in March, had proposed allocating $93 million for this purpose. The bill, which is scheduled for votes in both Houses on Thursday, calls for $87 million.

According to the Legislature’s current proposal, the Department of Community Affairs’ total budget for SFY ’18 would increase by a little less than $10 million, over the Governor’s March proposal. New priorities to be funded by that increase (as well as by the $6 million Transition Aid reduction) include: a County Prosecutors Funding Initiative Pilot Program ($4 million); an Anti-Violence Youth Out of School Summer Program ($3 million); the Volunteers of America Re-entry Services program ($4 million); the New Jersey Re-entry Corporation’s One-Stop Offender Re-entry Services program ($4 million); and other, smaller dedications. (See the Office of Legislative Services Budget Score Sheet for comparisons.)

With regards to the “Best Practices” inventory, please note the following. Prior to last year, the Director of the Division of Local Government Services was authorized to penalize non-compliant municipalities by denying them up to 5 percent of their total Consolidated Municipal Property Tax Relief Aid (CMPTRA) entitlement. Last year, using the line-item veto, the Governor changed that practice by adding language to the budget stating, “Notwithstanding the provisions of any law or regulation to the contrary, the release of the total annual amount due for the current fiscal year from Consolidated Municipal Property Tax Relief Aid to municipalities, is subject to (receiving a minimum acceptable score on the inventory) …” (Parenthesis added.)  That language is included in the proposal going before both Houses on Thursday.

The proposal put together by the Legislature would distribute CMPTRA and Energy Tax Receipts payments according to the schedule that has been in place for several years now. (45 percent on August 1, 30 percent on September 1, 15 percent on October 1, 5 percent on November 1, and the final 5 percent on December 1 for calendar year municipalities or June 1 for those on the fiscal year.) The Governor’s proposal had called for pushing greater percentages to later dates. (See the Legislature’s proposed Language Changes for details.)

Significantly, the bills to be voted on this week include changes in School Aid distributions and the Governor’s proposed use of proceeds from the State Lottery to address the State’s recurring pension funding shortfalls.

Contact: Jon Moran, Sr. Legislative Analyst, jmora@njslom.org, 609-695-3481 x121.

 

Scope of Government Record Under OPRA Widens

Tags

Open Public Records Act, OPRA

Today, the New Jersey Supreme Court decided, John Paff v. Galloway Twp., and Thalia C. Kay, a case in which the League joined as Amicus.  This decision was widely anticipated as it addressed the scope of a municipality’s obligation to disclose electronically stored information in accordance with the New Jersey Open Public Records Act (OPRA).

The Court ruled against the Township of Galloway and found that government records include “information stored or maintained electronically” and that, “information stored or maintained electronically” includes any information stored electronically.  The effect of this ruling is that it widens the scope of what can be requested and must be provided under OPRA.  According to the Court’s decision, information such as an email’s; sender, recipient, date, and subject constitute a government record and, absent any exception or exemption to OPRA, must be provided upon request from the citizenry.

The now widened scope of what is considered a government record under OPRA is not limited to the ancillary information associated with emails as dealt with in Paff.  The ramifications of the Court’s ruling are far more widespread.  It is not difficult to imagine what information can be requested and must be provided now that the scope of government record has been widened to include any electronically stored information.

Even though the boundaries of what constitutes a government record has been expanded the Court remained cognizant of the balancing act between disclosure and privacy concerns that record custodians are faced when dealing with OPRA requests.  Keeping these two important issues in mind along with public policy reasons for the various exceptions and exemptions to OPRA, the Court reiterated that all government records are subject to being withheld from disclosure should they meet one of the exceptions or exemption.  So, while the scope of what is a government record has been broadened to include any electronically stored information, a government entity subject to OPRA maintains the ability to withhold disclosure should doing so be barred under the exceptions or exemptions to the law.

This ruling and the effects it has on your municipality should be reviewed with your municipal attorney.  In addition this information should be shared with your clerk and other various record custodians within your municipality.

Contact:  Frank Marshall, Esq., League Staff Attorney, fmarshall@njslom.org, 609-695-3481 x. 137.