FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

In the Matter of a Complaint by FINAL DECISION

Lawrence G. Stankus and Haddam

Taxpayer's Association, Inc.,

Complainants

against Docket #FIC 94-59

Charles F. Sweetman, Superintendent, Regional School District No. 17;

Robert A. Norton, Jr., Chairman, Regional School District No. 17 Board

of Education and Gary J. Shettle, Director of Finance and Operations,

Regional School District No. 17,

Respondents February 22, 1995

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on August 1 and 15, 1994, at which time the complainants and the respondents appeared, stipulated to certain facts and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint. This case was consolidated for hearing with Docket #FIC 94-45, Elizabeth Allen against Charles F. Sweetman, Superintendent of Schools, Regional School District No. 17 and Gary Shettle, Director of Finance and Operations, Regional School District No. 17; and Docket #FIC 94-72, Walter Z. Czaja, Jr. and Haddam Taxpayer's Association, Inc. against Charles F. Sweetman, Superintendent, Regional School District No. 17; Robert A. Norton, Jr., Chairman,Regional School District No. 17 Board of Education and Gary J. Shettle, Director of Finance and Operations, Regional School District No. 17.

After consideration of the entire record, the following facts are found and conclusions of law are reached:

1. The respondents are public agencies within the meaning of 1-18a(a), G.S.

2. By letter of complaint filed February 23, 1994, the complainants appealed to the Commission, alleging that the respondents' replies to their requests for documents were materially incomplete.

3. It is found that the complainants on January 24, 1994 visited the offices of the respondents and submitted a written requested the following documents:

a. "A Trial Balance of the General Ledger for the District as of June 30, 1993."

Docket #FIC 94-59 Page 2

b. "A Trial Balance of the General Ledger for the District as of December 31, 1993."

c. "A copy of the Capital Equipment List dated June 30, 1993. This would be the same Capital Equipment List that was used to prepare the Balance Sheet for the District's Annual Report."

4. The complainants also requested other documents that were promptly provided to them and are therefore not at issue in this case.

5. It is found that the records described in paragraph 3, above, are public records within the meaning of 1-18a(d) and 1-19(a), G.S.

6. It is found that the complainants were asked to return on January 28, 1994 for the records.

7. It is found that the complainants returned on January 28, 1994, at which time the three records at issue in this case were not provided to them.

8. It is found that the complainants again returned to the offices of the respondents on February 3, 1994, at which time they were given copies of certain documents.

9. The respondents maintain that the documents provided to the complainants were completely responsive to their request.

10. The complainants maintain that the documents provided to them were incomplete.

11. With respect to the "trial balances" described in paragraph 2.a and 2.b, above, it is found that the complainants were provided with computer printouts of the bottom line trial balance of the respondent District's general fund, showing then current debits equal to credits, and a current balance of $0.00.

12. The complainants maintain that the trial balances provided to them were incomplete because no accounts other than the general fund account are listed.

13. In support of their position, the complainants point to certain pages of a textbook titled Managerial Accounting, by Carl L. Moore, MA, CPA, and Robert K. Jaedicke, PhD (South-Western Publishing Co., 3d Edition).

14. The complainant Stankus, an accountant, also testified in support of his definition of a trial balance as including a listing of accounts, and not simply the general fund total debits and credits.

Docket #FIC 94-84 Page 3

15. The respondent director of finance and operations, who is not an accountant, in turn testified that he believed the "trial balance" of the general fund he provided to the complainants was fully responsive to their request, and that different people meant different things by the term "trial balance."

16. The Commission finds the complainant Stankus' testimony and evidence more persuasive than that of the director of finance and operations, and that a trial balance reasonably includes a listing of the balances from the subsidiary accounts.

17. The respondent further maintains that the trial balances requested by the complainant did not exist when requested by the complainants.

18. It is found that the trial balances were printed from the respondents' computer system using a pre-existing program.

19. Section 1-19a(a), G.S., provides in relevant part:

Any public agency which maintains public records in a computer storage system shall provide, to any person making a request pursuant to this chapter, a copy of any nonexempt data contained in such records, properly identified, on paper, disk, tape or any other electronic storage device or medium requested by the person, if the agency can reasonably make such copy or have such copy made.

20. The respondent maintains that the complainants' request was not on its face a request for computer-stored information.

21. It is found, however, that the respondent director of finance and operations understood the request to be for computer-stored information, as evidenced by his use of the computer to provide it.

22. The respondent also maintains that the data requested were not properly identified.

23. It is found that the issue of whether the data contained in a "trial balance" were properly identified was resolved in favor of the complainants in paragraph 16, above.

24. It is therefore concluded that the respondents violated 1-15(a) and 1-19(a), G.S., by providing records to the complainants that were materially unresponsive to their request.

Docket #FIC 94-84 Page 4

25. With respect to the complainants' request for a capital equipment list, it is found that the list provided to the complainants appears to be a list of property purchased in 1992-1993, not a list of all capital equipment.

26. It is also found, however, that the complainants identified the list they wanted as the list used to prepare the balance sheet for District No. 17's annual report, and the list provided to the complainants is that same list.

27. It is therefore concluded that the list provided to the complainants was reasonably responsive to their request.

The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint:

1. The respondents shall forthwith provide to the complainants the requested trial balances. If the respondents need guidance beyond that provided in this final decision as to the contents of a trial balance, they shall rely on the textbook identified in paragraph 13 of the findings, above.

2. Henceforth the respondents shall strictly comply with the requirements of 1-15(a) and 1-19(a), G.S.

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of February 22, 1995.

Debra L. Rembowski

Clerk of the Commission

Docket #FIC 94-59 Page 5

PURSUANT TO SECTION 4-180(c), G.S. THE FOLLOWING ARE THE NAMES OF EACH PARTY AND THE MOST RECENT MAILING ADDRESS, PROVIDED TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION, OF THE PARTIES OR THEIR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE.

THE PARTIES TO THIS CONTESTED CASE ARE:

LAWRENCE G. STANKUS AND HADDAM TAXPAYER'S ASSOCIATION, INC.

P.O. Box 28

Hignum, CT 06441

CHARLES F. SWEETMAN, SUPERINTENDENT, REGIONAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 17; ROBERT A. NORTON, JR., CHAIRMAN, REGIONAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 17 BOARD OF EDUCATION AND GARY J. SHETTLE, DIRECTOR OF FINANCE AND OPERATIONS, REGIONAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 17

P.O. Box 568

Little City Road

Higganum, CT 06441

Debra L. Rembowski

Clerk of the Commission