Todays’ Sacramento Bee reports a major audit by the non profit group Californians Aware confirming that police agencies around the state are violating the Public Records Act by ignoring requests for documentation.
Let me provide three brief paragraphs of this story and ask for responses based upon your own experiences.
Reporters visited 216 police, sheriff’s and California Highway Patrol offices in 34 counties on Dec. 4, 2006, with a common goal: request law enforcement information to test compliance with the California Public Records Act. The audit measured what was provided and how fast.
The auditors went into the offices as members of the public, saying they were reporters only if pressed. California Public Records Act laws do not require requesters to identify themselves.
“These results were depressing,” McKee said. “We’re not trying to punish or shame anybody. We simply want to open the eyes of law enforcement people to the importance of maintaining a relationship with a public that wants to know.”
PS: To see the entire Sac Bee report simply go to:
www.sacbee.com/101/story/106879.html
Larry:
This is very true !!We had a classic example of this in Mission Viejo when one of the Motor Cycle Police hit a car on Alicia Parkway and Olympiad. Observers plainly noted it was the Motor Cycle Policeman who caused the accident.
When a citizen attempted to get records on the incident they were denied any and all information with”You don’t kneed to know that information”
Xezema
Larry,
The survey is a joke!
Read the reason the OCSD got an F-
1. The reporter – who did not identify himself as a reporter – showed up at Headquarters and was asked for ID. So, points are deducted. Are you kidding me?
2. Some of the information requested is available on the OCSD website – for free, for all to see, etc. Points deducted. Really?
3. The reporter was told to submit all other requests in writing via an EMAIL address that is SOLELY dedicated to public records requests. Points deducted. Wow.
What isn’t clear is whether or not the reporter ever followed up and submitted the request for records and whether the reporter received them. That would be helpful.
But, to show up at HQ with a stack of sh*t and expect to get a pile full of stuff in return, immediately, is a step-up for failure. It’s unfair as well.
The reporter notes that when he showed up at HQ, he was treated very well and immediately was referred to a member of staff who was helpful to the “reporter” with information on how the get the information requested.
This was a set-up.
Anonymous 10:56 AM
As someone who a prior city council attempted to intimidate for making numerous Public Record requests I can speak from personal experiences.
In Mission Viejo the city provides a Public Records request form that the applicant needs to fill out and submit. Further, the provider of said information is given 10 days in which to respond. Although the story states that the departments were told in advance of the Dec visits, the clock does not start until the written request is submitted.
In my case one of my requests was to see taxpayer paid telephone bills. The city attorney, who sometimes signs off on all requests, made life difficult and eventually agreed to provide a list with all of the numbers called redacted. That’s nice. Also very useless. Sometime later a member of the council wanted the city clerk’s department to create a listing of all individuals submitting these requests. Steve Greenhut covered that story in the OC Register. I think the title was Naming Names.
Back to the Sac Bee story. They do mention that in some cases it took longer than 10 days to receive a response. That is simply unacceptable. Nor is it a legal requirement to explain your reason for making the requests.
One note of caution. Although the city must respond to your requests they have no obligation to engage in related research beyond finding public records if in fact they are available.
Mr.or Ms. Anonymous. You seem to have more inside baseball information on this story than the general public. I find no direct reference to the OCSD, any city in OC, nor the gender of the reporters in each example.
Actually, Larry there is no “insider” information.
If you look at the story in the Bee and follow the links provided in the story, you can review each and every case submitted to the law enforcement agencies.
That was the process in looking at the OCSD. I used the website.
In addition, reporters notes are attached that describe their experience in their undercover ops.
You have the key to the whole issue in your reply — agencies have 10 days to respond AND can take longer under certain circumstances.
The law does not require instantaneous response to public records requests.
Why should an agency have to duplicate anything that is available on it’s website?
Finally, asking a member of the public for identification BEFORE allowing them entrance into a public law enforcement is not the same as asking for identification when submitting a request. Why was it treated the same for this survey? Set-up for failure is why.
I think the whole study stinks.
Thanks for tkaing the time to peel back the onion.
The following information comes from the Californians Aware 2007 audit. I have not looked into the actual audits, some of which were not included in the data which follows:
Californians Aware Audit Report 2007
Public Access to Law Enforcement Information
Findings and Conclusions
Newark Police Department (B-)
The city attorney who responded to this request on behalf of the police department wrote an excellent and timely letter explaining what would be made available and what would not and why, and helpfully requesting clarification on a few of the items. His response was the perfect example of what is intended in the CPRA in Government Code Section 6253.1, which states:
When a member of the public requests to inspect a public record or obtain a copy of a public record, the public agency, in order to assist the member of the public make a focused and effective request that reasonably describes an identifiable record or records, shall do all of the following, to the extent reasonable under the circumstances:
“(1) Assist the member of the public to identify records and information that are responsive to the request or to the purpose of the request, if stated.
“(2) Describe the information technology and physical location in which the records exist.
“(3) Provide suggestions for overcoming any practical basis for denying access to the records or information sought.
Shasta County Sheriff (B+)
This agency was generally very helpful and agreeable. It received the highest score of all sheriff s’ departments (the sheriff’s office in Pico Rivera earned a flat zero).
the public records act does not require that the requester identify oneself. however, when i requested from the ocsd a copy of the deputy binning accident report, i was told that i needed to provide a photo i.d. so they could determine if i was entitled to the report. i also had to provide them with their report number. i made my request and as expected my request was turned down, but with an unusually long explanation that basically said the sheriff’s department was not going to waste time researching the legal aspects of the public records act because they were hiding behind an exemption.
unjustified secrecy in government leads to corruption and depotism. With the release of californians aware public access audit, the ocsd has received another self-inflicted black-eye. cathy schlicht
PS: With respect to “duplicating data” that may already exist on the sheriff’s department web sites.
Not everyone requesting to see a public record has the skills or perhaps lacks access to a computer to bypass the hard copy request.
The law is very clear. We may view or obtain copies, for a cost, at all public agencies provided we allow that agency up to 10 days to provide same.
So, Larry.
You’re a fiscal conservative. Small government stuff. Reduce government waste….
How does your conservative principles allow you to say that the government should burn resources to provide documents that are already available for free on the internet?
Because they don’t have a computer?
Go to a library.
I think your response in hypocritical.
But, the agency still has ten days to respond.
Anonymous 4:46 PM.
Not bad. Your first sentence is a good start. In fact, based on my post, your last sentence is also correct.
“Burn resources.”
Before Al Gore invented the Internet how did members of the public access this data?
While many residents of Orange County probably have computers or can go to the library there are possibly others who cannot. Perhaps a senior citizen who got a ticket for driving too slow. You have to open your mind and your eyes when you try to provide a system where one size can fit all.
Yes, we should take avantage of technology but not at the expense of throwing away the back-up alternative.
With your way of thinking than we should have electronic voting in CA without a paper back-up?
I’d love to hear your response to this last point.
Larry,
Two points.
First, the words “ownership society” or similar things. You always seem to be against things that are provided by the government when individuals should be able to provide for themselves.
So, get a computer. The don’t cost alot. Or get a library card, for free.
Second, on a case-by-case basis I have no problem with providing hard copies for the person without access to the internet.
But, you have been an advocate for posting things on the internet and access on the internet.
So, it seems a little inconsistent of you to take a small faction of our current day population such as the little-old-lady that may not have internet access and apply it broadly.
Most law enforcement agencies and cities that I have ever worked for BEND OVER BACKWARDS to assist the public with anything.
But, one can always find a crack or fault.
I’m done with this.
Anonymous 6:21 PM
I agree that we are at the end of this string, or should be.
Let me suggest that you contact those responsible for the Public Records Act and have an Amendment added whereby members of the public requesting data can only get their information on-line.
In fact we might kill two birds simultaneously. Have everyone work from home on their computers and take their cars off the roads. This would eliminate traffic and save on fuel. Back to the issue at hand. Mandate that all public record requests must be processed by use of the Internet.
As to my posting on the Internet. That’s what I do. The invention and mass production of computers enabled me to retire. I spend too much time on Google researching for my recent activites on the Cutting Edge a talk show.
However I am not the typical OC resident.
In your research, what percentage of the 3 million OC residents actualy pay attention to the public policy issues that we post?
Simply go the blogs and check the number of hits.
Generally their major concerns are wrapped around the worn out expression “Quality of Life.” No crime and no potholes, don’t let my cable crash, and I am a happy camper.
Have a nice weekend.