2004-105

Final Decision

At its November 9, 2004 public meeting, the Government Records Council (Council) considered the October 1, 2004 Findings and Recommendations of the Executive Director and all related documentation submitted by the parties. An administrative change was noted on page 3 under number “2” of said findings and recommendations is changed from stating “February 23 and 30, 2004” to “February 23 and March 30, 2004.” 

The Council voted unanimously to adopt the entirety of said findings and recommendations with the noted administrative change.  The Council, therefore, dismissed the case on the basis of:

1. The Custodian’s certification that the Complainant was provided all available records responsive to the requests pursuant to the Open Public Records Act.
2. The Council lacks the jurisdiction to determine the validity of a record pursuant to the Open Public Records Act.

This is the final administrative determination in this matter. Any further review should be pursued in the Appellate Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey within forty-five (45) days. Information about the appeals process can be obtained from the Appellate Division Clerk’s Office, Hughes Justice Complex, 25 W. Market St., PO Box 006, Trenton, NJ 08625-0006.

Final Decision Rendered by the
Government Records Council
On The 9^th Day of November, 2004

Vincent P. Maltese, Chairman
Government Records Council

I attest the foregoing is a true and accurate record of the Government Records Council.

Virginia Hook, Secretary
Government Records Council

Return to Top

Findings and Recommendations of the Executive Director

Relevant Records Requested:

1. 1099 Gross income statements of 2003 for law firms performing risk management litigation services for Newark Public Schools
2. Names of cases handled by the law firms
3. September and October billing statements for the law firms conducting litigation services for Newark Public Schools workers compensation program
4. Names of cases handled by the law firms representing NPS
5. Copies of monthly billing statements for September and October 2003 concerning the law firms
6. Names on the insurance committee who awarded 2000-2001 contract to law firms
7. List of payments made to law firms January 2002 through December 2002
8. 1099 tax forms of 2003, 2002, 2001, 2000 for Allied Risk Services
9. Bill statements submitted to Allied Risk Services by law firms representing the Newark Public Schools
10. 1099 tax forms for 2000, 2001, 2002 for law firms performing risk management litigation services for Newark Public Schools
11. Billing statements of law firms January 2004 to present

Request Made: 1/19/04[1], 2/4/04[2], 2/28/04[3], 3/19/04[4], 7/8/04[5], 7/12/04
Response Made: 2/25/04, 4/28/04, 5/11/04, 8/2/04
Custodian:   Pamela Luke
GRC Complaint Filed:  7/12/04

Background

Complainant’s Case Position

The Complainant filed a Denial of Access Complaint with the Government Records Council on June 17, 2004 pursuant to N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1 et seq. alleging that:

1. She was denied access to copies of the 1099 tax forms for 2000 to 2003 of the four (4) laws firms who conduct litigation services for the Newark Public School’s (“District”) workers compensation programs and copies of the payments made to the same law firms for January 2004 to present.  The Complainant acknowledges receiving 1099 extracts.  She states that the payment records for January 2004 to present have not been provided to her.
2. The Complainant asserts that the District “has no way of knowing if the extract runs are complete or accurate” and submitted to the Federal Government unless they retained copies of the 1099 forms.  She contends that the District should maintain copies of the 1099 forms and not just the extracts.
3. The Complainant states that the District informed her they do not have the 1099 records and the vendor (Allied Risk Services) who maintains these records had not released them to District.

Public Agency’s Case Position

In response to the Complainant’s allegations, the Custodian asserts the following in the Statement of Information:

1. The District does not maintain or keep on file copies of the “original” 1099 tax forms and only maintain copies of the 1099 extract runs.  The Custodian states that the Complainant was provided copies of the 1099 extracts on 2/23/04 and 3/30/04 in response to the record requests.
2. The Custodian states that letter responses to the Complainant dated 2/25/04, 5/11/04 and 8/2/04 explained that the District only maintained copies of the 1099 extracts and did not have original copies of the 1099 tax forms (Copies of said letters were included with the Custodian’s Statement of Information submission).
3. The District states that it only receives the 1099 extract runs from the Third Party Administrator (Allied Risk Services), who retains only a 1099 extract, not a copy of the original 1099 tax form. 
4. The requested billing statements for January 2004 to present were provided to the Complainant on 8/2/04 once the bills were received from the law firms.  The Custodian informed the Complainant in a 4/28/04 letter that the District had not as yet received any legal bills from the law firms for the requested time period. 

Analysis

1. Whether the requested 1099 tax documents in a specific format are “Government records” pursuant to N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1.1.   
   
   A “Government record” or “record” is a document “that has been made, maintained or kept on file in the course of his or its official business by any officer, commission, agency or authority of the State …” 
   
   The Custodian certifies that the District and the Third Party Administrator (Allied Risk Services) maintain only 1099 extracts and do not maintain copies of the 1099 tax forms sought by the Complainant.  The Complainant acknowledges receipt of the 1099 extracts.  While the Complainant seeks a copy of the 1099 in a different format, the Custodian is not obligated to provide something in another form when it is not maintained in that manner.  There is no evidence in the record to indicate that the District or the Third Party Administrator (Allied Risk Services) maintained or copies of the requested tax records other than in the extract runs provided to the Complainant. 



2. Whether a denial of access occurred pursuant to N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1 et seq.
   
   At issue in this case are the 1099 tax documents of the law firms conducting litigation services for the NPS workers compensation program and the January 2004 to present bill statements.  Based on what is at issue in this complaint, the Custodian certifies in the Statement of Information that all available 1099 records responsive to the request were provided to the Complainant on February 23 and 30, 2004.  In an April 28, 2004 letter to the Complainant, the Custodian explained that the billing statements sought had not been received from the law firms and therefore could not be provided.  However, on August 2, 2004, the Custodian informed Complainant that the District received the billing statements and provided same to the Complainant. There is no evidence in the record that the requested billing statements were in existent prior to August 2, 2004 when they were provided to the Complainant.
   
   Based on the circumstances present in this case, the Complainant was provided all available records responsive to the requests pursuant to the Open Public Records Act and the Council should dismiss the case.  While the Complainant questions the accuracy and completeness of the 1099 extracts provided to her, the Open Public Records Act concerns access to government records and pursuant to N.J.S.A. 47:1A-7(b) the Council does not have the jurisdiction to determine the validity of a record. 

Documents Reviewed

The following documents were reviewed in preparing the Findings and Recommendations for this case:

1. July 17, 2004 – Denial Of Access Complaint Filed with copies of record requests
2. July 30, 2004 – Offer of Mediation to the Complainant and Custodian
3. August 11, 2004 – Custodian’s Statement of Information with copies of Complainant’s record requests and Custodian’s responses

Conclusions and Recommendations of the Executive Director

The Executive Director respectfully recommends the Council find that the Complainant was provided all available records responsive to the requests pursuant to the Open Public Records Act and lacks the jurisdiction to determine the validity of a record.  Therefore, the case should be dismissed. 

Prepared By:
Approved By:
Paul F. Dice
Executive Director
Government Records Council

Return to Top