2004-53

Final Decision

At its October 14, 2004 public meeting, the Government Records Council (“Council”) considered the October 4, 2004 Supplemental Findings and Recommendations of the Executive Director and all related documentation submitted by the parties. The Council voted unanimously to adopt the entirety of said findings.  The Council, therefore, dismissed the case on the basis that the Custodian has complied with the Council’s Interim Order of September 9, 2004 and responded to the Complainant’s April 12, 2004 request for items A-C at issue in complaint #2004-50.

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 20^th Day of September, 2004

I attest the foregoing is a true and accurate record of the Government Records Council.
Virginia Hook, Secretary
Government Records Council

Return to Top

Supplemental Findings and Recommendations of the Executive Director

Manalapan Englishtown Regional
Board of Education
   Custodian of Records

Records Requested: 
2004-50: 

1. Bills paid to Snap-On Tools and Eppy Tools (9/1/03 – 4/12/04).
2. Copies of 3 distinct price quotes for oil, antifreeze, transmission fluid and    window washing fluid (9/1/03 – 12/15/03).
3. The minutes/notes/agenda of all meetings pertaining to bus drivers and mechanics (12/15/03 – 2/17/03).
4. The minutes/notes/agenda of meeting of Transportation Director, Head Mechanic and Business Administrator (1/21/04).

2004-53:[1]

1. All receipts from Snap-On Tools and Eppy Tools of purchases from these vendors.
2. All documents pertaining to bus driver’s repair requests for each bus.
3. All copies of price quotes for oil, antifreeze, transmission fluid and window washing fluid.
4. Documents proving mechanics hold the following certifications – Federal regulation 82:40.
5. Documents proving mechanics hold the following certifications – N.J.S.A. 13:20, 47:15, 47:16 and 47:17.  
6. The minutes/notes/agenda of all mechanics meetings pertaining to bus drivers and mechanics.
7. The minutes/notes/agenda of all mechanics meetings pertaining to the training in regards to state contracts.
8. All purchase orders pertaining to parts and supplies for buses and maintenance vehicles.
9. All bills paid to outside vendors that have repaired buses and maintenance vehicles.

Request Made:   2004-50:  April 12, 2004
                            2004-53:  April 2, 2004
Response Made: 2004-50:   No response made
                              2004-53:  April 12, 2004
Custodian: Joseph Passiment, Business Administrator
GRC Complaint filed:   April 26, 2004

Background

At its September 9, 2004 public meeting, the Government Records Council (“Council”) considered the August 31, 2004 Findings and Recommendations of the Executive Director and all related documentation submitted by the parties. The Council voted unanimously to adopt the entirety of said findings and recommendations with the amended change to “2” of the Executive Director’s recommendations to read: “The Custodian’s actions in response to the over broad request of April 2, 2004.”  The Council, therefore, found that:

1. The Custodian did not violate the Open Public Records Act (“OPRA”) by seeking clarifications of items #1-3, 6 and 8-9 of the April 2, 2004 (2004-53) request pursuant to N.J.S.A. 47:1A-5(g).
2. The Custodian’s actions were in the response to the over broad request of April 2, 2004.  The Custodian has met the burden of proving that clarification was needed in order to fulfill the OPRA request. 
3. The Custodian did not “…knowingly and willfully…” violate OPRA “…under the totality of the circumstances…” as the Custodian certified to not have directly received clarification of the April 2, 2004 request dated April 12, 2004 (2004-50) and therefore could not respond. The Custodian is ordered to respond to the April 12, 2004 request (items A-C in 2004-50) within seven (7) business days from receipt of the Interim Decision and notify the Executive Director upon completion.
4. The Custodian provided a certification, as requested by the Council’s staff on July 8, 2004, explaining that no records exist pertaining to items #4 and #5 of the April 2, 2004 OPRA request (2004-53).  Therefore, no further action is needed.
5. The Custodian complied with item #7 of the April 2, 2004 request (2004-53) and item D of the April 12, 2004 request (2004-50) by providing the record that was in existence.  The Council additionally finds that OPRA does not address the validity of a record. 
6. The Custodian is not responsible for responding to items #8 and #9 from the April 2, 2004 request (2004-53) as the Complainant did not clarify the requests, which were indicated by the Custodian, in his response dated April 12, 2004, to be too broad in scope and needing clarification.  Further, the Council found that the Complainant was to submit a written refinement of items #8 and #9 from the April 2, 2004 (2003-53) request to the Custodian, however, the Complainant only clarified items #1 and #3 and submitted five (5) additional requests for items.  The Custodian is not responsible for items #8 and #9 as the Complainant has not clarified said requests. 
7. Regarding items #2 and #6 (2003-53), it is unclear if the Complainant clarified the requests with the Custodian, as the clarification was sent in a June 9, 2004 letter to the Council, therefore the Custodian is not held responsible for fulfilling the request until clarification is received.  The Complainant is responsible to clarify the request for items #2 and #6 directly with the Custodian within seven (7) business days from receipt of the Council’s Interim Decision.  Failure to comply will be a determination by the Council that the request was over broad and the Custodian will not be held accountable for fulfilling said requests. 

Public Agency’s Position

In a letter to the Complainant dated August 11, 2004, the Custodian asserts that the Complainant’s August 4, 2004 request, which is identical to items A and B requested on April 12, 2004, are ready for review.  Regarding item A, the Custodian states that no records exist pertaining to bills for the period of July 1, 2004 through August 4, 2004 for Snap-On or Eppy Tools.  The Custodian specifically mentions that in regards to item B, if quotes exist they will be available when the Complainant comes to the office to inspect the other requested records.  The Custodian further asserts that item C was supplied to the Complainant on April 12, 2004 as part of the April 2, 2004 request and provides the request form and attachments.  

Analysis

The following corresponds directly with the “Conclusions and Recommendations of the Executive Director” listed below.

1. N.J.S.A. 47:1A-5 (g) provides that “[i]f a Custodian is unable to comply with a request for access, the Custodian shall indicate the specific basis therefore on the request form and promptly return it to the requestor.”  The Custodian states that on August 11, 2004 in a letter to the Complainant, he responded to items A and B of the August 4, 2004 request, which is also reflected in the April 12, 2004 request that he never received.  The Custodian further asserts that item C was given to the Complainant on April 12, 2004 along with item D.  The Custodian never received the April 12, 2004 request and responded to items A and B from the Complainant’s August 4, 2004 request, which was received on August 9, 2004.

Documents Reviewed

The following records were reviewed in preparation for this “Findings and Recommendations of the Executive Director”

1. September 20, 2004 – Custodian’s response to Council’s Interim Order of September 9, 2004 requesting a response to items A-C. 

Conclusions and Recommendations of the Executive Director

The Executive Director respectfully recommends that the Council find that:           

1. The Council should dismiss the case on the basis that the Custodian has complied with the Council’s Interim Order of September 9, 2004 and responded to the Complainant’s April 12, 2004 request for items A-C at issue in 2004-50. 

Prepared By:

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

Return to Top

Interim Decision

At its September 9, 2004 public meeting, the Government Records Council (“Council”) considered the August 31, 2004 Findings and Recommendations of the Executive Director and all related documentation submitted by the parties. The Council voted unanimously to adopt the entirety of said findings and recommendations with the amended change to “2” of the Executive Director’s recommendations to read: “The Custodian’s actions in response to the over broad request of April 2, 2004.”  The Council, therefore, finds that:

1. The Custodian did not violate the Open Public Records Act (“OPRA”) by seeking clarifications of items #1-3, 6 and 8-9 of the April 2, 2004 (2004-53) request pursuant to N.J.S.A. 47:1A-5(g).
2. The Custodian’s actions were in the response to the over broad request of April 2, 2004.  The Custodian has met the burden of proving that clarification was needed in order to fulfill the OPRA request. 
3.   The Custodian did not “…knowingly and willfully…” violate OPRA “…under the totality of the circumstances…” as the Custodian certified to not have directly received clarification of the April 2, 2004 request dated April 12, 2004 (2004-50) and therefore could not respond. The Custodian is ordered to respond to the April 12, 2004 request (items A-C in 2004-50) within seven (7) business days from receipt of the Interim Decision and notify the Executive Director upon completion.
4. The Custodian provided a certification, as requested by the Council’s staff on July 8, 2004, explaining that no records exist pertaining to items #4 and #5 of the April 2, 2004 OPRA request (2004-53).  Therefore, no further action is needed.
5. The Custodian complied with item #7 of the April 2, 2004 request (2004-53) and item D of the April 12, 2004 request (2004-50) by providing the record that was in existence.  The Council additionally finds that OPRA does not address the validity of a record. 
6. The Custodian is not responsible for responding to items #8 and #9 from the April 2, 2004 request (2004-53) as the Complainant did not clarify the requests, which were indicated by the Custodian, in his response dated April 12, 2004, to be too broad in scope and needing clarification.  Further, the Council finds that the Complainant was to submit a written refinement of items #8 and #9 from the April 2, 2004 (2003-53) request to the Custodian, however, the Complainant only clarified items #1 and #3 and submitted five (5) additional requests for items.  The Custodian is not responsible for items #8 and #9 as the Complainant has not clarified said requests.
7. Regarding items #2 and #6 (2003-53), it is unclear if the Complainant clarified the requests with the Custodian, as the clarification was sent in a June 9, 2004 letter to the Council, therefore the Custodian is not held responsible for fulfilling the request until clarification is received.  The Complainant is responsible to clarify the request for items #2 and #6 directly with the Custodian within seven (7) business days from receipt of the Council’s Interim Decision.  Failure to comply will be a determination by the Council that the request was over broad and the Custodian will not be held accountable for fulfilling said requests.

Interim Decision Rendered by the
Government Records Council
On The 9^th Day of September, 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

Records Requested: 

2004-50:

1. Bills paid to Snap-On Tools and Eppy Tools (9/1/03 – 4/12/04).
2. Copies of 3 distinct price quotes for oil, antifreeze, transmission fluid and    window washing fluid (9/1/03 – 12/15/03).
3. The minutes/notes/agenda of all meetings pertaining to bus drivers and mechanics (12/15/03 – 2/17/03).
4. The minutes/notes/agenda of meeting of Transportation Director, Head Mechanic and Business Administrator (1/21/04).

2004-53:[1]

1. All receipts from Snap-On Tools and Eppy Tools of purchases from these vendors.
2. All documents pertaining to bus driver’s repair requests for each bus.
3. All copies of price quotes for oil, antifreeze, transmission fluid and window washing fluid.
4. Documents proving mechanics hold the following certifications – Federal regulation 82:40.
5. Documents proving mechanics hold the following certifications – N.J.S.A. 13:20, 47:15, 47:16 and 47:17.  
6. The minutes/notes/agenda of all mechanics meetings pertaining to bus drivers and mechanics.
7. The minutes/notes/agenda of all mechanics meetings pertaining to the training in regards to state contracts.
8. All purchase orders pertaining to parts and supplies for buses and maintenance vehicles.
9. All bills paid to outside vendors that have repaired buses and maintenance vehicles.

Request Made:    2004-50:  April 12, 2004
                              2004-53:  April 2, 2004
Response Made: 2004-50:   No response made
                              2004-53:  April 12, 2004
Custodian: Joseph Passiment, Business Administrator
GRC Complaint filed:   April 26, 2004

Background

For the purposes of adjudicating cases 2004-50 and 2004-53 effectively and expeditiously, the cases will be analyzed in the same Findings and Recommendations. The Open Public Records Act (“OPRA”) request found in 2004-50 is essentially a clarification of the OPRA request found in 2004-53.

Complainant’s Case Position for 2004-53

The Complainant filed a Denial of Access Complaint with the Government Records Council on April 26, 2004 pursuant to N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1 et. seq. alleging that the Custodian did not disclose the records responsive to her April 2, 2004 OPRA requests. 

The Complainant claims to have filed an OPRA request seeking various items regarding the transportation facility and outlined above in items #1-9.   The Complainant asserts that the Custodian denied items #1-3, 6 and 8-9 because they were too broad in scope.  Regarding items #4 and #5, the Complainant’s request for records pertaining to certifications of mechanics, the Complainant affirms that the records were denied because certifications are not applicable to the repair facility.  As to the records pertaining to the meeting of the transportation director, head mechanic and business administrator on January 21, 2004 (item #7), the Complainant acknowledges receipt of the copy of the record although she does argue that the record was not given out at the meeting on January 21, 2004.

The Complainant in a letter addressed to the Council dated June 9, 2004, she clarifies item #6 by listing the dates the possible meetings took place.  The Complainant also clarifies item #2, outling the records that pertain to the “bus driver’s repairs requests for each bus” by seeking daily driver’s checklist, certification, accident reports, oil change reports and mirror adjustment records.

On August 4, 2004, the Complainant, in response to the Council’s staff letter dated July 7, 2004, filed a clarification of the April 2, 2004 request, directly with the Custodian, for items #1 and #3 (April 20, 2004 request for items A and B) and in addition made a request for five (5) other items not related to this complaint.

Public Agency’s Case Position for 2004-53

In response to the Complainant’s allegations, the Custodian affirms that items #1-3, 6 and 8-9 were all denied because the requests were too broad in scope.  The Custodian did, however, in a letter dated April 12, 2004, ask for clarification and resubmission of the OPRA request for the items that were too broad.  The Custodian certifies on July 12, 2004 that the request for certifications for the mechanics (items #4 and #5) cannot be fulfilled because the repairs are done off site and no such documents exist.  The Custodian states that a copy of a record pertaining to the minutes, notes and agenda for the mechanics meeting of January 21, 2004 regarding state contracts (item #7) was given to the Complainant on April 12, 2004.

Complainant’s Position for 2004-50

The Complainant filed a Denial of Access Complaint with the Government Records Council on April 26, 2004 pursuant to N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1 et. seq. alleging that the Custodian made no response to the records responsive to her April 12, 2004 Open Public Records Act requests.

The Complainant alleges that an OPRA request was sent on April 12, 2004 requesting information regarding the transportation facility outlined in items A-D above.  The Complainant supplied an unsigned copy to the Government Records Council in the Denial of Access Complaint.

The Complainant alleges that no response was made to her requests.  The Complainant did submit additional information on June 9, 2004 reiterating information submitted in the Denial of Access Complaints.  The Complainant specifically mentions that she did not receive item D (or item #7 in 2003-53), but earlier states that the record is fabricated and would like a refund of the copy charges.  The Complainant, further, asserts that she did not feel her requests were too broad in scope as a particular vendor is new.

The Complainant, in a letter to the Council dated June 9, 2004, restates the clarification of item A as listed in her OPRA request dated April 12, 2004.

On August 4, 2004, the Complainant, in response to the Council’s staff letter dated July 7, 2004, filed a clarification of the April 12, 2004 request, directly with the Custodian, for items A and B only (items #1 and #3 in 2003-53).

Public Agency’s Position for 2004-50

In response to the Complainant’s allegations, the Custodian asserts in the Statement of Information that the April 12, 2004 request was not received.  The Custodian does, however, acknowledge a one page fax from the Complainant disputing the validity of the record received regarding the meeting of the transportation director, head mechanic and business administrator on January 21, 2004.  The Custodian contends that their office never received clarification of the April 2, 2004 request. 

The Custodian asserts in regards to item D, the minutes/notes/agenda of the meeting of the transportation director, head mechanic and business administrator for January 21, 2004, a copy of the only record was given to the Complainant regarding the informal meeting.

Regarding both 2004-50 and 2004-53, the Custodian, in the Statement of Information dated May 17, 2004, asserts that the Government Records Council was contacted in dealing with the Complainant’s requests.  The Custodian contends, “[t]he situation was explained to Erin Mallon of the GRC.  Ms. Mallon instructed the District as to how to respond to the very open ended requests being made by [the Complainant].  Ms. Mallon also consulted Mr. Paul Dice on several issues pertaining to employee payroll records.”  In a letter dated June 1, 2004, the Council’s staff maintains that the information given to the Custodian was not legal advise or to be construed as instruction.  The letter asserts that the Custodian was directed to review various portions of OPRA that pertained to the Custodian’s specific inquiries.  The letter also advised the Custodian to review the sections of OPRA with the agency’s legal counsel.

Analysis

The following corresponds directly with the “Conclusions and Recommendations of the Executive Director” listed below.

1. N.J.S.A. 47:1A-5 (g) provides that “[i]f a Custodian is unable to comply with a request for access, the Custodian shall indicate the specific basis therefore on the request form and promptly return it to the requestor.”  The Custodian responded to the Complainant’s April 2, 2004 OPRA request on April 12, 2004.  The Custodian responded to items #1-3, 6, 8-9, in the 2003-53 case, as being too broad and desired the Complainant to clarify the request.  The Custodian is justified in seeking clarification to the requests that were too broad to fulfill.
2. OPRA provides that a Custodian “…shall have the burden of proving that a denial of access is authorized by law.”  N.J.S.A. 47:1A-6.  The Custodian stated in his April 12, 2004 response to the Complainant’s April 2, 2004 OPRA request that in order to fulfill the request it needs clarification.  The Custodian additionally conveyed that dates would suffice in helping to clarify the April 2, 2004 OPRA request.  In stating specific reasons for the denial of access and offering alternatives to clarify the request, the Custodian has met the burden of proving that the denial of access was proper under OPRA.
3. The Custodian did not respond to the April 12, 2004 OPRA request (items A-C of 2004-50) made by the Complainant even after receiving the request as an attachment in the 2004-50 Denial of Access Complaint.  The Custodian claimed to not have directly received the request and therefore could not respond.  The Custodian should not be found to have “…knowingly and willfully…” violated OPRA “…under the totality of the circumstances…” as the Custodian has certified to not having received the request (N.J.S.A. 47:1A-11), however, should now respond to the Complainant’s clarified OPRA request made on April 12, 2004 and August 4, 2004.
4. N.J.S.A. 47:1A1.1 provides that a government record is “…made, maintained or kept on file…” within the public agency.  The Custodian certified on July 12, 2004 that the certifications for mechanics in items #4 and #5 (2004-53) are not applicable to the repair facility as the repairs that require the certifications are done off site and that no records exist pertaining to their certifications.
5. Regarding item #7 and item D (2004-53 & 2004-50), which pertains to minutes/notes/agendas of the January 21, 2004 meeting of the transportation director, head mechanic and business administrator, the Custodian stated that only record is existence or that is “…made, maintained and kept on file…” was given to the Complainant (N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1.1).  The Complainant disputes the validity of the record received in her 2004-50 Denial of Access Complaint.  OPRA does not, however, address the validity of government records.
6. The Custodian sought clarification of the Complainant’s April 2, 2004 request, specifically items #1-3, 6 and 8-9 (2004-53).  The Complainant alleges to have sent another OPRA request on April 12, 2004, in which she clarified items #1, 3 and 6 (items A-C in 2004-50) only.
7. On June 9, 2004, the Complainant sent a letter to the Council clarifying requested items #2 and #6 because they were too broad in scope to be fulfilled by the Custodian.  N.J.S.A. 47:1A-5 (g) provides that “[i]f a Custodian is unable to comply with a request for access, the Custodian shall indicate the specific basis therefore on the request form and promptly return it to the requestor.” The Custodian justifiably sought clarification of items #2 and #6 in a letter dated April 12, 2004.  The Custodian certifies no receipt of clarification of the April 2, 2004 request or receipt of the April 12, 2004 request.  Further, there is no indication that the June 9, 2004 letter to the Council was sent to the Custodian, therefore, the Custodian is clearly not responsible for fulfilling the request for these items #2 and #6 until the clarification of the request is received.

Council’s staff, in a letter dated July 7, 2004, sought for the Complainant to clarify and resubmit the April 2, 2004 OPRA request for items #1-3, 6 and 8-9.  The Complainant only clarified items #1 and #3 on August 4, 2004 and submitted a request for five (5) additional items. The Custodian should not be responsible for items #8 and #9, as the Complainant has not clarified her request.

Documents Reviewed

The following records were reviewed in preparation for this “Findings and Recommendations of the Executive Director”

2004-50:

1. April 12, 2004 – Complainant’s clarification of April 2, 2004 OPRA request listing items A-D above
2. April 26, 2004 – Denial of Access Complaint form
3. April 28, 2004 – Offer of Mediation to Complainant and Custodian
4. May 12, 2004 – Request for Statement of Information
5. May 17, 2004 – Statement of Information with attachments of April 2, 2004 OPRA request and April 12, 2004 response from the Custodian
6. June 1, 2004 – Government Records Council staff letter sent to Custodian regarding inquiries received prior to complaint being filed
7. June 9, 2004 – Complainant’s letter to Council with additional statements reiterating her position and comments regarding the handling of her cases
8. July 7, 2004 – Council’s staff’s letter seeking clarification of Complainant’s April 2, 2004 OPRA request be sent to the Custodian
9. July 8, 2004 – Council’s staff’s letter seeking certification from Custodian
10. July 12, 2004 – Custodian’s certification of items #4 and #5 in case 2004-53
11. August 4, 2004 – Complainant’s OPRA request to Custodian clarifying items #1 and #3 of the April 2, 2004 request and requesting five (5) additional items

2004-53:

1. April 2, 2004 – Complainant’s OPRA request dated April 2, 2004 listing items #1-9 above
2. April 12, 2004 – Custodian’s response to OPRA request dated April 2, 2004 seeking clarification of items #1-9 as the request is too broad in scope
3. April 26, 2004 – Denial of Access Complaint form
4. April 28, 2004 – Offer of Mediation to Complainant and Custodian
5. May 10, 2004 – Request for Statement of Information
6. May 17, 2004 – Statement of Information with attachments of April 2, 2004 OPRA request and response from Custodian dated April 12, 2004
7. June 1, 2004 – Government Records Council staff letter to Custodian regarding inquiries received prior to complaint being filed
8. June 9, 2004 – Complainant’s letter to Council with additional statements reiterating her position and comments regarding the handling of her cases
9. July 7, 2004 – Council’s staff’s letter seeking clarification of Complainant’s April 2, 2004 OPRA request be sent to the Custodian
10. July 8, 2004 – Council’s staff’s letter seeking certification from Custodian
11. July 12, 2004 – Custodian’s certification of items #4 and #5 in case 2004-53
12. August 4, 2004 – Complainant’s OPRA request to Custodian clarifying items #1 and #3 of the April 2, 2004 request and requesting five (5) additional items

Conclusions and Recommendations of the Executive Director

The Executive Director respectfully recommends that the Council find that:

1. The Custodian did not violate OPRA by seeking clarifications of items #1-3, 6 and 8-9 of the April 2, 2004 (2004-53) request pursuant to OPRA.
2. The Custodian was proper in denying access to the said records requested in the April 2, 2004 OPRA request because he has met the burden of proving that clarification is needed in order to fulfill the OPRA request. 
3.   The Custodian did not “…knowingly and willfully…” violate OPRA “…under the totality of the circumstances…” as the Custodian certifies to not have directly received clarification of the April 2, 2004 request dated April 12, 2004 (2004-50) and therefore could not respond.  The Council should order the Custodian to respond to the April 12, 2004 request (items A-C in 2004-50) within seven (7) business days and notify the Executive Director upon completion.
4. The Custodian provided a certification, as requested by the Council’s staff on July 8, 2004, explaining that no records exist pertaining to items #4 and #5 of the April 2, 2004 OPRA request (2004-53). 
5. The Custodian complied with item #7 of the April 2, 2004 request (2004-53) and item D of the April 12, 2004 request (2004-50) by providing the record that was in existence.  The Council should additionally find that OPRA does not address the validity of a record. 
6. The Custodian is not responsible for responding to items #8 and #9 from the April 2, 2004 request (2004-53) as the Complainant did not clarify the requests, which were indicated by the Custodian, in his response dated April 12, 2004, to be too broad in scope and needing clarification.  Further, the Council should find that the Complainant was to submit a written refinement of items #8 and #9 from the April 2, 2004 (2003-53) request to the Custodian, however, the Complainant only clarified items #1 and #3 and submitted five (5) additional requests for items.  The Custodian should not be responsible for items #8 and #9 as the Complainant has not clarified her request. 
7. Regarding items #2 and #6 (2003-53), it is unclear if the Complainant clarified the requests with the Custodian, as the clarification was sent in a June 9, 2004 letter to the Council, therefore the Custodian should not be held responsible for fulfilling the request until clarification is received.  The Complainant should specifically clarify the request for items #2 and #6 directly with the Custodian within seven (7) business days.  Failure to comply will indicate that the Custodian will not be held accountable for fulfilling the Complainant’s request for items #2 and #6.

Prepared By:

Approved By:

Paul F. Dice
Executive Director
Government Records Council

  August 31, 2004

Return to Top