Information Demands Add To Finance Office Work Load

By Kendra Bobowick

It took Newtown’s Finance Director Benjamin Spragg less than an hour to explain the paperwork accounting for all 15 expenditures in question under one of the most recent FOI (Freedom of Information) request from Friends of Newtown. He needed most of each day last week to come up with the data for each breakdown, the finance director noted.

Mr Spragg was preparing the information for business owner Matthew DeAngelis, who has stepped into the spotlight as the spokesperson for Friends of Newtown, a group affiliated with Insidenewtown.com, which presents a blog of discussion and criticism about Newtown government.

Explaining the financial breakdown of expenditures associated with Fairfield Hills was the easy part.

The time spent retrieving and assembling the background data for requests such as “Itemization of a $4,478,666 ‘General Government’ expenditure” proved much more lengthy.

Mr Spragg said, “It’s not a problem, but [it’s] time consuming.”

At issue for Friends spokesperson Mr DeAngelis are several doubts regarding the town’s responses to these recent FOI demands, among other areas. He has become outspoken about what he believes is the town’s inadequate compliance with previous inquiries directed at the municipality since October of this year, which at first began anonymously. Soon the website emerged with Mr DeAngelis associating his name with it. Within days talk of a lawsuit turned to action when Mr DeAngelis filed against the municipality.

Frustrations mounted as he offered his analogy for what he sees happening between his group and the town since October.

“If someone was entitled to a paper I had, I would run to give it to them,” he said.

The town is not running, in his opinion, which prompted the legal move.

“That’s why I have to ask the state to compel the town,” he said. Mr DeAngelis is the lone plaintiff named in the civil lawsuit he filed against the municipality and individuals in their official capacities on the Board of Selectmen and Fairfield Hills Authority.

He explains his demands — including the November 29 request for the 15 financial questions posed to the municipality — as the right of any resident.

Specifically, he said, “I would like to know where our tax money is going. I think the questions speak for themselves.” Mr DeAngelis again referred to the $4.47 million general government expenditures, which is number one on the 15-item FOI request. Noting an asterisk beside this amount, Mr DeAngelis explained, “Any rational person would [ask] what’s is the General Fund and what is the money spent on.” Underlining his position, he said, “I know I am not asking things other people have not.”

At the end of last week as Mr Spragg concluded his research to itemize the $4.47 million along with all other amounts in the 15-item request, he opened a folder to a detailed sheet disclosing for how much and to whom checks were written. The bottom line read exactly $4,478,666.

Mr Spragg was able to itemize the total without a problem, he said. He first had to figure out that the quoted sum was from 2002 and not from more current financial records. “He must have looked at the financial records in 2002.” Looking again at the total of $4.47 million, he said, “The General Government spent $4,478,666.”

The finance director explained, “We have a detailed list of expenditures in 2002.” Mr Spragg had with him a list of everything that covers operations for that year. “I have the detailed list and can break it down further...if needed I can pull each invoice filed for the expenditures.”

Should attorneys request additional verifications of amounts on Mr DeAngelis’s behalf, Mr Spragg said he can direct someone to the receipts. This information is available for all 15 requests, including itemization of a $458,000 Fairfield Hills expenditure, itemization of a $518,314 capital projects authorization, records concerning the issuance of $5.83 million in bonds related to Fairfield Hills/Town Hall renovation, and a series of other totals.

Providing one detailed example of the itemizations he produced, Mr Spragg noted the FOI request for the amount of $950,000 difference between a bond issue and an authorized unissued bond amount listed in a comprehensive financial report. Essentially, Mr Spragg said the $950,000 is the difference between the $21.85 million allotted for Fairfield Hills and a deduction leaving that total at $20.9 million. The difference, $950,000, is the amount marked for the Newtown High School playing fields, which was also part of the package in the initial $21.85 million.

Mr Spragg said, “It’s basically the same type of thing,” to handle the itemizations. He again shuffles folders containing lists of expenses with bottom lines matching Mr DeAngelis’s inquiries.

Describing himself as a citizen who has questions, Mr DeAngelis chose to seek the information formally through written Freedom Of Information Act requests rather than in person.

He offers several explanations.

“Because I am not a financial expert. I am busy,” he said. Shaping a question of his own, Mr DeAngelis asks, “Why does it make any difference? There is really no difference.”

Others feel differently.

First Selectman Herb Rosenthal who initially was confused by a person’s or group’s reason for anonymously making requests and asking for replies via e-mail, remarked, “Under the auspices of the FOI we’re subject to fines if we don’t comply — it’s a very different approach than a conversation.”

Last week, The Newtown Bee successfully requested information from the first selectman and financial director on the same topics and financial amounts cited within the FOIs.

The first selectman has had the past several weeks to consider how he feels about the anonymity. He said, “[When] a person is trying to be so secretive, you don’t even know if it’s legit...it’s easier to comply when people are straightforward.”

The newspaper also readily received explanations for the 15-item request. Granting that Mr Spragg had already spent the week with the itemizations, he also was forthcoming with explanations for each amount literally stacked in folders in his office. Mr DeAngelis’s attorney handling these requests —Dennis M. Buckley — confirmed that he picked up the paperwork on Tuesday, December 5.

Mr Rosenthal answers the presence of Mr DeAngelis’s lawyer(s) by summoning town attorney David Grogins. Mr Rosenthal explained, “When someone says, I would like my lawyer to look at this — what am I supposed to think?” Definitively, he said, “Lawyers respond to lawyers. Most people don’t start that way.”

Mr DeAngelis has hired an attorney with a strong financial background to assist in his requests.

“I chose someone who had experience in this particular field to take a look at this, he said.” He is aware of Mr Rosenthal’s response.

Mr DeAngelis said, “Should I have been nicer?” he asks rhetorically.

Providing a reminder that the FOI prompts began over email anonymously in early October, Mr DeAngelis noted the time that has passed saying, “Shouldn’t they have been nicer to me? I just want answers.”

Town officials maintain that his questions cannot be answered by simply retrieving paperwork from a filing cabinet, but take some research into past years’ records, for one example.

Mr Rosenthal confirmed that it is possible to follow a receipt trail that adds up to what has been spent to date for town expenditures and for projects including Fairfield Hills. He also stressed that with Fairfield Hills specifically, “every [amount] spent has been approved multiple times by the voters.” He looks back to the initial referendum approving the roughly $21 million. Budget matters go before the Board of Selectmen, Board of Finance, and ultimately a referendum, Mr Rosenthal said.

Like Mr Rosenthal, Mr Spragg flatly denied that the town officials could misspend funds.

Both men mentioned a yearly auditing process for one, and mentioned that financial reports are a regular portion of the Fairfield Hills Authority’s monthly meetings, for example.

Also among arguments from Friends spokesperson Mr DeAngelis are implications that responses have not been timely. Further, the Friends’ website’s “Informational Request Scoreboard” states the group’s FOI requests in one column, and their rating of responses in another at Insidenewtown.com. For example, requests made on October 19 and October 22, according to the website, were regarded as “Stall,” “Incomplete,” or “None.”

Freedom of Information Commission Attorney Victor Perpetua explained that time periods for compliance “are not black and white.”

He said, “‘Promptly’ could mean how much you ask for, how much is requested, whether the person who requested it has said they need it in a hurry, and what other demands are at the agency’s hands.”

Mr Spragg said he is currently entering his busiest time of the year.

He said, “I have to finalize financial statements, I am starting the 2007-2008 budgets, I am working on the Capital Improvement Plan, bond issues…”

He also believes that the documents he has compiled are “probably the clearest form of a response. There is no confusion, no mix-up.”

Attorney Perpetua details the penalties municipalities could incur for lack of compliance. “There is a range of possibilities. One remedy is to provide copies and there is a fine of $1,000 if the commission concludes there is denial without reasonable grounds.”

He continued, “There is a discretionary civil penalty for noncompliance…”

He also considers the scenario of a person filing a complaint with the commission because they do not feel they receive information requested.

“Everyone says they were denied records and about half win,” he said.

Mr Rosenthal denied that his office or the financial office delayed or withheld responses. He said, “As far as I know we have complied with everything he has asked for.” Mr Rosenthal speculates about whether Mr DeAngelis or Friends think the town is hiding something.

“Others have had access,” Mr Rosenthal said.

Mr DeAngelis maintains his uncertainty.

Have town funds been misspent? Mr DeAngelis answered that question with his own question: “If you phrase the question, ‘Does the government waste money?’ Yes. I do [think so]. Yes, it does.” Focusing on this town specifically, he said, “Does the government of Newtown waste money? I don’t know.”

In his search for answers, Mr DeAngelis said, “I think I have asked very specific questions. I don’t have the answers I asked for.” Mr Buckley said he had retrieved the paperwork on the same day The Newtown Bee spoke with Mr DeAngelis. Attorney Buckley reserved comment and said he will now review the paperwork.

Elaborating, Mr DeAngelis said, “Would a rational person look at $6, $10, $12 million spent on Fairfield Hills and ask, ‘What did I get for my money?’” Continuing, he said, “I don’t even know what’s been spent at Fairfield Hills.”

Simply answering his questions would make everything easier, he said.

“The easiest way to make this go away is to stop what you’re doing at Fairfield Hills, account for the money, and put the master plan to referendum,” he said.

(See related story about the Board of Selectmen, this issue)