WEST MILFORD A bill to strengthen the public meeting and records acts is causing concern and sparking heated debate among local supporters and opponents. State Senator Robert Martin, who represents West Milford as part of the 26th district, is the primary sponsor of S1219, the bill to amend the open public meetings act and the open public records act. Wayne Gottlieb, a member of the board of education, is against the new bill and has the support of board president Midge Touw. Gottlieb expressed his fears that if the new bill progresses successfully it could lead to a host of unwarranted complaints against public bodies such as the school board. Speaking at a recent board meeting Gottlieb said, “The effect of this bill would be to encourage anyone to come forward with a complaint a complaint with or without foundation. “Costs incurred by a public body defending itself against a complaint are not recoverable. A caseload of complaints would generate great financial costs to a public body such as the Board of Education. The logic here is unfathomable.” In an attack at the bill’s intention to create greater openness from public bodies, Gottlieb alleges the new proposals undermine current legal standing. Gottlieb said, “When these complaints go to the Government Records Council there is a lower burden of proof. The public body would be required to prove its innocence, turning due process on its head.” A regular contributor and participant in open public meeting and record affairs is Martin O’Shea. O’Shea gave little credence to Gottlieb’s concerns saying, “Everything Wayne identifies as a potential problem with the bill is either not accurate or can be solved by individuals such as himself by obeying the law, whether it be the current open meeting act or the proposed one.” On the notion that complaints would rise against public bodies and could impose a substantial financial burden, O’Shea was equally dismissive, “That’s a total red herring. We heard the same thing back when OPRA [open public records act] was being debated and it never happened and I am convinced it won’t happen when the proposed legislation to reform the Open Public Meetings Act is passed by the legislature. It seems to me that the public often is more responsible than the people who represent them.” Gottlieb also drew aim at John Paff, one of the chief architects of the new bill. Paff is also a local activist for the Libertarian Party which holds as one of its policy standpoints the complete separation of state and school, putting education entirely into the private sector. Gottlieb alleged that Paff was contradicting himself by supporting the new act, yet also promoting privatization of schools. Gottlieb said, “If Paff had his way there would be no openness in schools. Imagine trying to get information from a private corporation?” Paff responded to this allegation saying, “When goods or services are delivered privately, market forces will tend to keep the customer informed of the private firm’s internal workings. When those same goods or services are delivered by government, and the customers’ cannot opt out of paying for them, political forces (i.e., OPRA, OPMA, etc.) are needed to keep the customer’ informed of the government’s internal workings. There is no contradiction, therefore.” The bill is currently at the committee stage in the state senate. It can be read in its entirety and a summary of its effects at www.njsunshinelaw.com.