Paul Levy, Consumer Law and Policy:
The Freehold School Board has subpoenaed New Jersey Online to identify several citizens who chimed in to discuss stories published in the Newark Star Ledger and New Jersey Online about several high administrators who got fake degrees from an online diploma mill, and hence received higher pay. After New Jersey Online notified its subscribers of the subpoena, the ACLU of New Jersey and Freehold attorney Stuart J. Moskovitz stepped in to represent various anonymous posters, and NJ.com has refused to furnish identifying information about the posters.
Howell representative William Bruno on the school board said he was in favor of the Aug. 31 subpoena.
“If they have nothing to hide, what’s the problem?” Bruno said.
4 Comments
The last time I checked, unlike Congress, local school boards do not have inherent subpoena power. This means either of two things: 1) There is an active case pending in a court related to this matter or 2) someone is sending out documents that appear to be subpoenas, but really aren’t in the hope that the recipients will merely comply.
If there is an active case pending, then the subpoenas recipients can file a motion to quash and move for sanctions against the lawyer who issued the subpoena. If there is no pending case, the person who isssued the subpoena can be sued for abuse of civil process. If that person happens to be a lawyer, a State Disciplinary Committee complaint may be the more appropriate vehicle.
Here is a copy of the subpoena, in PDF format. Doesn’t look like there’s a pending court case, only a school board disciplinary hearing. The school board might be empowered to issues subpoenas duces tecum for administrative hearings under New Jersey law. There’s a statute cited in the subpoena, and when I Google it, the results indicate that it has to do with compulsory process related to a school ethics commission, but I haven’t found the actual statute.
So, yeah, maybe they can issues subpoenas, but I don’t understand what relevance the identities of anonymous commentors could possibly have to do with the disciplinary action taken against the school board employees – unless it’s simply harassment.
The statute may be found here:
http://tinyurl.com/ybz3793
18A:6-20. Right to testify; counsel; witnesses; compulsory process
18A:6-20. Any party to any dispute or controversy or charged therein, may be represented by counsel at any hearing held in or concerning the same and shall have the right to testify, and produce witnesses to testify on his behalf and to cross-examine witnesses produced against him, and to have compulsory process by subpoena to compel the attendance of witnesses to testify and to produce books and documents in such hearing when issued by (a) the president of the board of education, if the hearing is to be held before such board, or (b) the commissioner, if the hearing is to be held before him or on his behalf, or (c) the president and secretary of the State board, if the hearing is to be held before such board or before one of its committees, or (d) the chairman of the board of trustees of the State or county college or industrial school, if the hearing is to be held before such board.
The subpoena shall be served in the same manner as subpoenas issued out of the Superior Court are served.
Looking at the subpoena, it appears that there is a presumption (whether founded or unfounded I can’t say from a quick perusal of the comments to the one article) that the commenters are employees of the school district, and the subpoena is issued in anticipation of raking them over the coals at a disciplinary hearingbefore the school board.