Mayor Gorman responds to article; see post below….
Former Gloucester Mayor Gorman Fighting A Legal Battle With The City That Elected Him; Battle is Over City Police Department Records
By Bill Cleary
Reporter\’s Note: Since 2004 former Gloucester City Mayor Robert Gorman has been fighting a court battle with the City of Gloucester and the Police Department over information that he feels should be released under OPRA. In doing research I found a recent decision handed down on the proceedings that is dated December 14, 2006. A link to that decision appears at the bottom of this post. I must warn you it is quite long.
According to the legal document, \”while Mr. Gorman was still the Mayor of Gloucester City there was uncomplimentary material posted on NJ.com. It is stated that Mr. Gorman believed that some of these postings were made by Gloucester City Police Officers, and he also believes they could have made these posts while on duty at police headquarters. Apparently, while he was Mayor, Mr. Gorman requested that the Police Department investigate these allegations. It is also stated that, \”Mr. Gorman believed that the Gloucester City Police Department was attempting to harm and/or harass him and now wants to review the results and status of the various internal investigations he requested while he was still mayor of Goucester City.\”
Continuing my research I was able to find a article about the squabble published in the Courier Post July 2006. The story appears below.
Trying to access public information
(Courier Post July 5, 2006) Robert Gorman, former mayor of Gloucester City, believes he was ticketed improperly — for driving without illumination on his license plate — after he criticized members of his city\’s police force for speeding while on routine patrols.
So Gorman, who left the mayor\’s position after moving to Moorestown last year, is seeking a copy of the patrol-car videotape made shortly before he was ticketed.
The request, made in July 2004, initially sought more than a dozen documents. City officials provided some records, said others did not exist and said some, like the patrol car videotape, should not be made available.
The Government Records Council last month (June 9, 2005) referred the case to an administrative law judge, who is to determine, among other issues, whether the patrol-car videotape is a public record and whether Gloucester City can charge Gorman $48,000 to provide copies of \”all no tag light tickets issued by the Gloucester City police department.\”
The city estimates that includes more than 40,000 tickets.
The city\’s records custodian in the case is Solicitor James Maley. The custodian normally would be City Clerk Paul Kain, but he is related to Gorman.According to the GRC, Maley has said parts of the patrol-car tape are confidential and the tape can be edited only by a law-enforcement agency.
In February, Maley told the GRC that the city\’s police department \”does not have the capability to edit the tape to remove the confidential information it contains.\”
He also said city police had discussed Gorman\’s request \”with the Camden County Prosecutor\’s Office, the New Jersey Attorney General\’s Office and the local office of the FBI and all three have refused their request to edit the tape because they will only do that for law enforcement purposes, and they do not consider this request to be a law enforcement purpose.\”
Gorman had disputed that view, telling the GRC that Gloucester City police \”are capable of editing the tape themselves because of the fact that they have already edited the exact tape\” when his traffic violation was heard in municipal court.
The fight\’s about more than a traffic ticket to Gorman. \”I want a precedent,\” says Gorman, who says his case will determine whether patrol car videotapes are public records.
Gorman also says he no longer is seeking copies of the 40,000 traffic tickets.
To view the most recent legal documents on this case read more
COMMENT (S)Comment:
Bob,
I appreciate the fact you took the time to clarify the situation. At
least to me, it makes a lot more sense now. It sounds like you did
what you could do to address the situation. Ultimately, it is up to
the commanders of the Police Dept. to rectify the problem and they are
the ones liable.
How come you wanted to view just that one tape? I would think there
are a ton of tapes on file if every patrol car has one. Was it just
the officer who wrote you the ticket that you wanted to check up on?
It just seems like there is more to this than we know about, especially
with the mentioning of nj.com. It seems to me that anyone can post
anything they want on that website, free speech and everything.
However, if officers were doing this from the Police Dept. while on
duty, I would think that would be a violation of department policy.
Again, I guess it is up to the commanders of the dept. to investigate
and address any violations.
Frank G
************************************************************************************************************************
From former Mayor Bob Gorman
Based on the recent post, several people have asked me why I am
attempting to have the police video tape made public. Fact is it has
nothing to do with having received a ticket for not having a light
above my license plate. That minor ticket was issued several years ago
and the fine was paid in full in 2004. During that court hearing only
a portion of the tape dealing with my \”No Tag Light\” ticket was shown.
The reason I requested a full copy of the video tape back in 2003 was
based upon several officers, not all, occasionally driving through City
streets at excessive speeds and ignoring traffic laws for non-emergency
calls. Knowing that this one tape existed, I requested a full copy
excluding non-public information. I addressed this issue at the time
in the Gloucester City News and several residents agreed that something
had to be done. As Mayor I attempted to address this very dangerous
issue within the Police Committee; however, police administration
refused to follow through. I am the first to realize that officers
sometimes are required to drive at high rates of speed for emergency
situations; however, for non-emergency calls they should comply with
all traffic laws. Numerous residents complained to me about this
dangerous situation at the time and I wanted to address such before it
was too late. Later I followed up with an Open Public Records Act
(OPRA) request as a private citizen.
The Open Public Records Council issued an interim decision stating that
the tapes were public; however, the City appealled this decision.
I agree with Frank G. that the purpose of the tapes is for the
protection of everyone. That includes the child that happens to be
chasing a ball and is unable to get out of the way of a speeding
vehicle.
Also, I specifically asked the the video copy exclude personal
information about others. I only requested public information. I agree
that personal drivers license information should not be released to the
public.
As Councilman and then as Mayor I took the lead in acquiring these
recording devises so that if there ever was a question about a police
action the video recording would help sort things out. The vast
majority of the times these tapes assist the police officers in making
an open and shut case. However, on rare occasions they point out
improper actions by police officers. The point of my actions were not
to discipline anyone but to control a very dangerous situation.
Gloucester City Police Officers are good and honest people and deserve
credit for their service to the community; however, we all should be
willing to fix bad habits.
To clarify another point made, I simply made a request for public
information and at no time hired a lawyer nor do I intend to do such.
This was a simple request to receive a copy of a video tape to help
protect the public and nothing more.
I\’d like to thank Bill Cleary for maintaining a great website and wish
all a Safe and Happy New Year.
Bob Gorman
This post was imported from a legacy archive. Please excuse any formatting inconsistencies.
Rick Gonzales