There were many golden nuggets thrown out at the June 30, 2026 Council meeting.
One of the most notable was the alleged “draft” of an “evaluation” conducted by Suplee, Clooney & Company on the Recreation Commission for a total of $3,241.25, per the Township Bill List for June 30, 2026.
NJ21st sent the Township Records Custodian an OPRA request to review the documents discussed at the Council meeting.
Specifically requested under OPRA and the common law right of access was the document citing the scope of work and agreement between the Township and Suplee, Clooney & Company for the evaluation of the Recreation Commission.
Included in the OPRA request were six individual and specific requests, including invoices, purchase orders, payment records, approval of the transfer or acceptance of services and fees, the final work product of services rendered and paid to Suplee, Clooney & Company, the draft, memo, recommendations, communications related to the evaluation and all records identifying elected, appointed and paid Township employees and volunteers who were included in the evaluation.
After two weeks, the Records Custodian produced a 21-page document with the engagement letter for the annual audit of the Township and a handful of emails between the Township Administrator, William Swisher from Suplee, Clooney & Company and Recreation Commission Chair Sean McDonnell.
The engagement letter, received in response to the OPRA request for records regarding the Recreation Commission evaluation, does not make a single reference to the Recreation Department, the Recreation Commission or an “evaluation.”
The timeline of records received:
January 5, 2026: Sean McDonnell, Recreation Commission Chair, sends an email to Township CFO Diane Sherry citing the “completion of an audit of recreation department finances” and requesting that the findings be shared with the Recreation Commission.
January 6, 2026: Liza Viana, Township Administrator, replies that “it” has not been completed but an inquiry into the deliverable timeline would be addressed.
January 15, 2026: An email from William Swisher, Suplee, Clooney & Company, to Liza Viana is received with the subject line “Draft Recreation Letter.”
January 19, 2026: An engagement letter is emailed to Liza Viana from Suplee, Clooney & Company for the annual audit of the Township of Berkeley Heights.
February 2, 2026: Liza Viana emails the signed engagement letter for the Township’s annual audit to Suplee, Clooney & Company.
February 5, 2026: An email from William Swisher to Liza Viana with the subject “Draft Berkeley Heights 2” is received.
February 27, 2026: Liza Viana emails the Mayor, Township Clerk and Township Attorney the “Draft Berkeley Heights 2” email from William Swisher.
March 19, 2026: Sean McDonnell emails Liza Viana asking if the report has been received.
March 19, 2026: Liza Viana responds to Sean McDonnell, apologizing for the oversight and citing a busy workload.
In a phone conversation with the Records Custodian on July 10, 2026, she explicitly stated that the requested document remains in draft form and cannot be released under OPRA.
While a draft may be exempt if it contains inter-agency or intra-agency advisory, consultative or deliberative material, a document is not automatically exempt simply because it is labeled a draft. The public agency bears the burden of supporting its basis for denying access.
The Township’s response also leaves unanswered whether NJ21st’s separately asserted common law right of access was evaluated. OPRA does not eliminate the common law right of access, which requires a separate determination of whether the requester’s interest in disclosure outweighs the government’s interest in preventing disclosure.
In this case, the Township says the evaluation has yet to be finalized. That could be because, as reported at the June 30, 2026 Council meeting, nothing substantial was found. It also raises the question of whether leaving the document unfinished allows the Township to continue withholding it from the public.
In a voicemail left before the July 10 call, NJ21st asked whether the document would be finalized within a matter of days or whether the Township intended to continue treating it as a draft indefinitely. That question was not addressed when the Records Custodian returned the call.
The legal responsibility for responding to and either granting or denying an OPRA request rests with the Records Custodian. Attorneys may provide advice, but the custodian is responsible for the agency’s response to the records request.
During the follow-up call, the Records Custodian objected to NJ21st’s use of “you” and “you guys” when discussing the decision not to release the document and asked who NJ21st was referring to.
NJ21st identified her in her capacity as the Records Custodian and repeatedly asked who had made or directed the decision to withhold the document.
The Records Custodian stated that there was no final version of the record and that she only had a draft.
When NJ21st again asked who was telling her not to release the document, the Records Custodian stated, “I’m not even going to answer the question.”
The question remains whether any such “draft document” outlining the formal evaluation of the Recreation Commission exists or whether the draft is merely a set of unofficial notes from a phone conversation or informal meeting.
The fact remains that this “draft” document was cited as the origin of the recommendation to dissolve the Recreation Commission and restructure the Recreation Department, with oversight and control falling squarely within the Township.
Perhaps this “draft” is merely a red herring.
Oversight and control are NOT synonymous, but it is certainly feeling like there is a legitimate power struggle unfolding. With the lack of actual records tied to decisions our elected officials are making, perhaps a wise resident hit the nail on the head: Maybe there is something nefarious going on here?
As this report is being withheld, NJ21st has received reports from several credible sources that there has been an increased number of investigations into the Recreation Department stemming from “anonymous sources” suspected to be internal and intended as a means to justify the Township taking over the Recreation Commission.
NJ21st has not independently confirmed the identities or motives of the anonymous sources.
Related Articles
JCP&L Faces $44.1M Proposed Fine Over Three Years of Reliability Failures
Key Bills Waiting For Governor Sherrill’s Pen
