29-04-2025
Democrat running for governor wants more transparency in Trenton — what about in his own backyard?
Jersey City Mayor Steve Fulop tells voters he wants to bring more transparency to Trenton. So why did he take the New Jersey Monitor to the state Supreme Court over access to police records? (Illustration by Alex Cochran for New Jersey Monitor/Fulop photo by Reena Rose Sibayan)
When lawmakers proposed gutting the state's public records access law last year, a surprising advocate for transparency came out against that push: Steve Fulop, the Democratic mayor of Jersey City and a 2025 candidate for governor.
I say surprising because when I covered Jersey City, the city and I often tussled over access to public records. Police reports, emails between city officials, architectural records, Fulop's work schedule … name a public record and I probably got a 'your request is denied' email from the Fulop administration about it.
But, hey, I welcome any and all transparency advocates, even bandwagon-jumpers.
So color me surprised that the Fulop administration and I will be facing off in court yet again, this time at the New Jersey Supreme Court on Tuesday as Jersey City argues that it simply must withhold records the New Jersey Monitor is seeking.
This time, the record is an internal affairs report we requested from the file of police Lt. Michael Timmins, who police say fired a gun at guests during an alcohol-fueled dispute at a party at his Sussex County home in 2019 (no one was injured). Timmins was initially charged with terroristic threats and possession of a weapon for unlawful purposes, a violation of the New Jersey Graves Act, which requires mandatory prison sentences for some gun crimes. But Timmins went through a pretrial diversionary program and was able to get details of his arrest expunged. Fancy that.
Police disciplinary records are not necessarily open for public inspection — but the state Supreme Court ruled three years ago that, under the state's common law right of access, when the public's interest in the records outweighs an officer's confidentiality concerns, the records must be made public. I think when it comes to a cop who has a six-pack or more of beer and then fires a gun at civilians while off duty, the public's interest in the department's investigation of his conduct is more important than the cop's privacy.
Another interesting fact about Timmins' case: He was allowed to have his record expunged even though people charged with violating the New Jersey Graves Act are normally not given the option of pleading guilty to any non-Graves Act offenses. So Timmins gets a special deal and a slap on the wrist, and his expungement could give his bosses in Jersey City a chance to hide the details of his departmental discipline (Timmins was suspended for 19 days and lost another 71 days).
It's not as if we don't have evidence that Jersey City has already tried to hide the details of Timmins' behavior. When the city published its annual list of officers who face discipline in 2021 but didn't have to provide the officers' names, it wrote about Timmins, 'A member of this agency while off duty retrieved a firearm after consuming 6-8 beers. He negligently discharged a round from the firearm during a dispute.' When it later had to amend that report to include the officers' names per a state directive, it amended it to, 'Lt. Timmins negligently discharged a firearm while off duty and on his personal property.' Suddenly the city decided the public didn't have to know Timmins had been drinking before firing his gun and that he fired it during a fight with someone.
The secrecy even extended to the lawsuit we filed about Timmins' IA report — the city asked the trial court judge to seal all the records, so the filings in the case were, and remain, shielded from public view.
The city cannot be trusted to be honest about what happened with Timmins, so it's up to us to find out, if the Supreme Court agrees.
Fulop campaign spokeswoman Emily Potoma disagreed with my argument that the case represents Fulop whistling a different tune on transparency than he does on the campaign trail.
'Both sides are seeking further clarity from the Supreme Court, as Jersey City prevailed at the trial court level, and that ruling was partially reversed by the Appellate Division. This is not an attempt to avoid accountability, it's about ensuring that everyone is following the law,' Potoma said.
Except the city could have released these records back when we requested them in March 2022, before any expungement order had been issued and muddied the waters. Instead, it denied the request, moved to make all the legal briefings in our case secret, and, when it partially lost an appellate court ruling, asked the Supreme Court to weigh in. Hardly the actions of a transparency crusader.
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
