Each time a government agency obstructs the public’s right to know — whether through excessive fees for government records or unjustified delays in releasing information — it punctures the fabric of our participatory democracy. Irvington inflicted one such rupture when it sued one of its residents, 82-year-old Elouise McDaniel, in part for filing what it determined to be a “voluminous” and “overly burdensome” number of records requests. Fortunately, the township decided to drop the lawsuit, but it serves as an important reminder of the need to protect the public’s right to access information about how government officials are carrying out their roles and responsibilities on behalf of their communities.

Instead of choosing courses of action that stand to deter people — whether interested community members, journalists or others craving greater transparency — from exercising their right to access information that helps them investigate, scrutinize and report on the operations of government, our public officials should seek to expand opportunities for civic engagement and opt for openness rather than secrecy.

Fortunately, New Jersey’s highest court agrees.

Law enforcement records

Last month, the state Supreme Court issued back-to-back decisions that staunchly defended the public’s right to know and reaffirmed the critical importance of access to documents that shine a light on public officials’ conduct — and their misconduct. These unanimous rulings open the door to greater access to law enforcement records, a category of records in which there’s been acute interest in recent years in New Jersey and beyond. These recent decisions also build upon the principal goal of New Jersey’s open government laws, which, as the state’s high court noted 10 years ago, is to enable “citizens and the media [to] play a watchful role in curbing wasteful government spending and guarding against corruption and misconduct.”

In Libertarians for Transparent Government v. Cumberland County, the state’s highest court ruled that a settlement agreement between a former corrections officer accused of sexually abusing an inmate and Cumberland County setting forth the terms of the officer’s departure was in fact a public record subject to the disclosure requirements of the state’s public records law. The ruling is especially important in light of the county’s deceit in telling the public about the nature of the employee’s departure, having claimed it had terminated him from the job when, in reality, he was permitted to retire in good standing.

In Rivera v. Union County Prosecutor’s Office, the court granted access to internal affairs investigation records pertaining to the former director of the police department in Elizabeth. The Union County prosecutor investigated allegations that the director had harassed members of his department with racist and sexist slurs, and the attorney general called upon the director to resign. Again, the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled that the interests favoring public disclosure of records detailing the investigation far outweighed the confidentiality interests claimed by the state — particularly in light of the rank of the official investigated, the fact that the misconduct allegations were sustained and the seriousness of the transgressions.

Ensuring access to data and documents

In both cases, the Supreme Court agreed with arguments my colleagues and I at the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press made in briefs urging the justices to make the records public. Attorneys at the Reporters Committee get involved in cases like these to ensure that members of the news media can access data and documents that help them learn what government agencies and officials are up to, all in service of keeping their communities informed.

These Supreme Court decisions weave greater transparency and accountability into the tapestry of open government that New Jersey communities collectively construct each time an individual files an open records request, attends a school board meeting or sues the government to enforce the state’s open government laws. Government actions that could dissuade public participation in democracy, like Irvington’s lawsuit against Ms. McDaniel, undoubtedly tear at those fibers. It’s up to journalists, lawyers, curious community members and everyone in between to keep threading the needle by calling upon government institutions to protect the public’s right to know at all costs.