The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About8.3 Public Records Act Audit Calif Law CITY CLERK File # D@f2][(lJ-~[(] AGENDA STATEMENT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: February 6,2007 SUBJECT: Public Records Act "Audit" of California Law Enforcement Agencies by Californians Aware (CalAware) \.\.1 Report Prepared by Amy Cunningham, Sr. Administrative Analyst p ATTACHMENTS: 1. Californians Aware (CalAware) "Agency Audit Details" for Dublin Police Services 2. Request for Information - December 4, 2006 3. Response to Informational Request from City of Dublin 4. Audit Analysis Table 5. Memo from League of California Cities RECOMMENDA nON: ~ Receive report FINANCIAL STATEMENT: None DESCRIPTION: As a result of recently published newspaper articles regarding California law enforcement agencies' compliance with Public Records Act requests, the City Council requested additional background information about the self-described "audit" conducted by Californians Aware (CalAware) at Dublin Police Services (DPS) in December 2006. CalA ware is a nonprofit organization that states its mission is to "foster the improvement of, compliance with and public understanding and use of, public forum law, which deals with people's rights to find out what citizens need to know to be truly self-governing, and to share what they know and believe without fear or loss." (\v\vw.calaware.org) CalAware sponsored a statewide audit of law enforcement agencies in December 2006. The purpose of the audit was to evaluate the experience a "regular citizen" would receive when requesting public records information at the agency. Background information on the audit posted on the CalAware web site (www.calaware.org) discusses the methodology reporters were instructed to use when visiting law enforcement agencies and making the public records requests. Reporters were instructed to visit the public counter at pre-designated law COPY TO: Carl Aaron, 7888 Ironwood Drive, Dublin Page 1 of 4 ITEM NO. 8.~ ynforcement agencies and request information orally and via written request. The steps outlined in CalAware's methodology do not necessarily reflect the experience of City of Dublin Police Services Records Staff on December 4, 2006. On the afternoon of December 4, 2006, a customer came to the Police Services counter requesting: 1) a copy of a Form 700 (statement of economic disclosure) for a County employee; 2) call for service information; and 3) arrest information. In fulfillment of the third request, and in accordance with departmental procedure, the customer was provided with the Dublin Police Services Arrest Log for review. However, Records Staff were unsure how to fulfill the first two requests. Thus, the customer was also asked additional questions in an attempt to clarify what other information she was seeking. While speaking with her, Records Staff proceeded to make telephone calls to other department employees in an effort to obtain additional clarification and assistance in determining what information was being requested and what information was available at Dublin Police Services. Ultimately, it was determined that the Form 700 was a document that, if it existed, would be maintained by the Sheriff's Administrative Office, and the call for service information the customer was requesting could be provided through the Sheriff's Office Communications Center. The contractual relationship between the City and Sheriff's Office was explained to her and she was provided with information about how to contact the various units of the Sheriff's Office to obtain that information. Prior to leaving, the requestor submitted a written request (Attachment 2) for additional information to Records Staff. Upon review of the request, Staff noted that there was no contact information for the requesting party on the submitted document. The reporter was then asked to provide her name and contact information to facilitate delivery of the City's response to her request. She was again reminded that the City of Dublin contracts for law enforcement services with Alameda County Sheriff's Office and that many of the records she was requesting could likely be obtained by contacting the Sheriff's Administrative Offices in Oakland. She was also advised that her written information request would be forwarded to the City Attorney's Office and a response would be provided within 10 days pursuant to the Public Records Act. At no time did Staff refuse to accept her written information request. Ratin2 Methodolo2V Analvsis The CalAware "Agency Audit Details" for Dublin Police Services (Attachment 1) provides a breakdown of the rating methodology used to arrive at Dublin's final score of 55. Based upon auditor input, the organization assigned DPS a total score of 55 out of a possible 100 points, or an overall grade of D+. Table 1 below outlines the nine areas rated by the auditor; the type of request (oral or written); the points deducted; and the DPS response to the request. The table clearly demonstrates that 40 of the 45 points were deducted because the customer was referred to the Alameda County Sheriff's Office (ACSO) for the information. Thus, DPS' score was due to the City of Dublin's unique position of contracting for law enforcement services with Alameda County Sheriff's Office. The remaining 5 point deduction was because the requestor reported that she was asked to identify herself and her affiliation. However, it is believed that identifying information was requested by Staff only to assist in obtaining clarification about what records were being sought and to gain the contact information necessary to respond to the requestor, once the response had been complied. The inquiry was not a requirement or condition of submitting the request or obtaining the records requested. It is the legal duty of Staff under the Public Records Act to assist the requestor by asking clarification questions to clearly determine what information is being requested. Affiliation information was not requested or required by Staff, but instead volunteered by the customer during the course of that clarifying conversation. able Details - Rating1\; Attachments 1 & 2 Request DPS Response to Request Points # T e Item Re uested Deducted 1 Oral Conditions Required by Records Staff did not require -5 Agency: Affiliation affiliation information; rather, it was volunteered 2 Oral Form 700 (Statement of Records Staff informed customer that -10 Economic Disclosure) this information is not a City record and is available at the Sheriff's Administrative Offices located in Oakland. 3 Oral Crime Information/Calls for Records Staff informed customer that -10 Service this information is available at the Sheriff's Communications Division located in San Leandro. As Alameda County Sheriff's Office transitions to new Computer Aided Dispatch and Records Management software programs, it is hoped that this information can be provided to the public at Dublin Police Services in the coming months. 4 Oral Arrest Information Records Staff provided customer with 0 this information 5 Written Asset Forfeiture Funds Staff provided customer with this 0 Disbursement information 6 Written Officer Salary Schedule Staff informed customer that this -10 information is available at the Sheriff's Administrative Offices located in Oakland. 7 Written Death of In-Custody Reports Staff provided customer with this 0 information 8 Written Employment Contract of Staff informed customer that, if -10 Chief/Sheriff/Commander available, this information could be obtained by contacting the Sheriff's Administrative Offices located in Oakland. 9 Written Fees for Copies of Reports Staff provided customer with this -0 information Total Points Deducted -45 While DPS was assigned an overall score of 55, CalAware reported that the statewide median score was 40 and the median score in the nine Bay Area counties was 30. Attachment 4 provides an additional explanation of the responses given to the written informational request (Attachment 1) accepted by Police Records Staff during the customer's site visit on Monday, December 4, 2006. The City of Dublin response (Attachment 2) was finalized on the evening of rhursday, December 7th, at which time the customer was notified via telephone that the information was available for pick-up during regular business hours the following morning. The response was retrieved by the customer on the afternoon of December 13, 2006. Patrick Whitnell, General Counsel with the League of California Cities states in a letter to the League membership (Attachment 4), "the League has serious concerns regarding the methodology used by Cal Aware, and the accuracy of the reports submitted by the volunteer auditors." A review ofthe information outlined in this report demonstrates that the methodology used in rating agencies was designed to support CalAware's position that law enforcement agencies do not comply with their interpretation of the Public Records Act. Government Code S6254(f) of the Public Records Act provides a broad exemption for disclosure of law enforcement records. The law recognizes that law enforcement records often contain private information about citizens who have an expectation that their personal information will be protected. Because of the complex nature of this subsection and frequent court decisions amending the interpretation of the law, the City Attorney's Office has provided training to Police Records Staff on an annual basis for the last several years. Training was last conducted on June 6, 2006, and another training session is tentatively planned for the late spring of2007. Furthermore, Police Records Staff is cognizant of the difference between confidential law enforcement record information held by Dublin Police Services in accordance with Government Code S6254(f) and routine business or statistical information that does not fall under the "law enforcement record" exemption. CalAware's methodology describes the desirability of "one-stop shopping" to obtain public record information. While this may be a desirable goal, it is impractical from operational efficiency and legal perspectives. Accessibility of all public records at every public counter is not a viable option due to the sheer volume of records that would be required to be duplicated, retained and managed in multiple locations. There is also significant liability associated with releasing legally protected documents and information that is the lawful property of another organization. The "audit" results discussed in these recent newspaper articles demonstrating the failure of law enforcement agencies to release public information are not reflective of DPS operations. Police Records Staff strive to accommodate all information requests from the public in a legal, timely, and helpful manner. Police Records Staff complete formal Customer Service Training programs minimally on an annual basis. The last training program was provided in January 2006. At that time, a consultant specializing in customer service training for public agencies provided a four hour customer service training class for all city employees and an additional four hour training block specifically targeted to Police Services Records Staff and the unique customer service situations encountered in Police Services. Attending both blocks of this training was mandatory for all Police Records employees. Another specialized training program is currently being planned for the late spring or early summer of 2007. New Police Records Staff are provided with supplemental training from outside vendors to further assist in development of the skill sets necessary to deliver continued high quality service. There is an ongoing emphasis and focus on enhancing service delivery through the provision of internal training at the Record's Unit bi-monthly staff meetings. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council receive this report. L"I , Californians Aware www.calaware.org Details of Agency Dublin Police Department 100 Civic Plaza Dublin CA 94568 Alameda County Leslie Griffy The San Jose Mercury News D+ 12:48:00 pm D 01:00:00 pm . Carol Pyle 50 12: 12:00 am Affiliation -5 -10 Yes, it exists, but it must be requested from a different department or agency 12/02/2006 Sheriff's Headquarters (contract city) -10 Yes, it exists, but it must be requested from a different agency Must request from Sheriff's Headquarters Calls between Nov. 1-15 for these crimes > Crime information provided included o Yes, it exists and is available 12/02/2006 ii"', 1+ 55 ATTACHMENT 1 ".? \o~ ~ "J \1 b<.. .. C'-""'V. Always Always Always Always Always Always Always Always o Yes, it exists and is available k -10 Yes, it exists, but it must be requested from a different agency 12/05/2006 County Sheriff o No such documents exist that are responsive to this request 12/05/2006 No deaths to report -10 Yes, it exists, but it must be requested from a different agency 12/05/2006 County Sheriff o Yes, it exists and is available 12/05/2006 $2 for first 8 pages and $.25 for each additional page. NOTE: These items were collected, but for research only <not graded): l..lk--~ ~. -. I I' if' ';";'O,r~ -'~ f . Yes, it exists, but it must be requested from a different agency County Sheriff . Yes, it exists, but it must be requested from a different agency 12/05/2006 County Sheriff Yes, it exists, but it must be requested from a different agency 12/05/2006 County Sheriff Yes, it exists, but it must be requested from a different agency 12/05/2006 County Sheriff .', fT~ ,~.;, Yes, it exists, but it must be requested from a different agency 12/05/2006 County Sheriff $0.25 $2.00 $2.00 AUDITOR'S EXPERIENCE Initially did not ask who I was or where I worked before allowing me to see the arrest log. Was OK with me asking after the crime information but didn't have it available. Some of the arrest reports included incident information. Told me the Form 700 would likely be at the County Sheriff's office. They contract with the sheriff's department for services. When I asked to drop off the written request, I was told they were required by law to know what my affiliation was before they could accept it. Denied all but one written request, saying the information is at the sheriff's office. ~ t)~ ~ ! Llt'.' iLL \'0 \ December 4, 2006 Dublin Police Department 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 Subiect: Records request, made pursuant to the California Public Records Act (Government Code S 6250 et seq.) Dear Dublin Police Department Representative, I am writing to ask to inspect each of the following public documents, which if they exist at all, I understand would be in the possession of your agency: 1. Most recent record of asset forfeiture fund disbursements. (See Health & Safety Code S 11495(a).) 2. Most recent summary of officer discipline statistics (See Penal Code Section 832. 7( c ).) 3. Officer salary schedule-the document fixing the salaries assigned to each rank, grade and step for each peace officer position maintained by the department. 4. Individual Officer Compensation Records Namely, the document or documents disclosing the total dollar compensation actually paid to each peace officer employed by this department for the first 11 months of 2006, identifying the officer only by rank, unless the number of officers occupying that rank is three or fewer, in which case a number may be assigned, e.g. Officer 1, Officer 2, etc. 5. Officer Workers Compensation Claims Namely, a copy of all workers compensation claims filed by peace officers employed by this department for the first 11 months of 2006, identifying the officer only by rank, unless the number of officers occupying that rank is three or fewer, in which case a number may be assigned, e.g. Officer 1, Officer 2, etc. 6. Officer Second Job Records Namely, a copy of the most current record or records disclosing the second jobs, if any, held by each peace officer employed by this department, identifying the officer only by rank, unless the number of officers occupying that rank is three or fewer, in which case a number may be assigned, e.g. Officer 1, Officer 2, etc. 7. The most recent death in custody report sent to the Department of Justice. (See Government Code S 12525.) 8. The complete employment contract of the department's highest raDking peace officer. (See Government Code Section 6254.8.) In regard to the records listed below, I am requesting true and correct cOllies of each. I understand I may be charged for the cost of their duplication. 9. Media RelationslPublic Information PolicylPolicies I would like to obtain a copy of any document that states the department's policies and procedures for dealing with requests for information or other activities of journalists or news organizations. If there is a policy or procedural guideline for dealing with requests for information from non-media \ 0" 2.. ATTACHMENT 2 Decemb~ 2,qolo~ citizens, please provide a copy of that as well. Please also provide, whether included in the general policies or not, any orders or directives concerning: · the public disclosure of the names of officers whose use of a weapon or other conduct has led to the death of a person, and the timing of the disclosure; · the public disclosure of the names of minors who are accident or crime victims but are not suspected of committing crimes or otherwise subject to juvenile court jurisdiction. 10. Fees charged for copies of crime reports provided to crime victims or their representatives for insurance or other compensation purposes. I would like to obtain a copy of whatever document states the fee to be charged for records or reports including "the names and addresses of persons involved in, or witnesses other than confidential informants to, the incident, the description of any property involved, the date, time, and location of the incident, all diagrams, statements of the parties involved in the incident, the statements of all witnesses, other than confidential informants, to the victims of an incident, or an authorized representative thereof, an insurance carrier against which a claim has been or might be made, and any person suffering bodily injury or property damage or loss, as the result of the incident caused by arson, burglary, fire, explosion, larceny, robbery, carjacking, vandalism, vehicle theft, or a crime as defined by subdivision (c) of Section 13960," as required in Government Code S 6254, subdivision (f). Thank you for your cooperation in this request. Please contact me at the number below with a response to any of these requests as soon as you have arrived at it (please don't wait until several or all are ready to get back to me). Contact: ~~~ 6?l7ltJ, ~~cc~~ \JJWJ5 1frlfJ1j @ drY? (j~.~ &Y' L:-fo'6) '?~~2qu--q L o~L l.o Db {~ CITY OF DiUBLIN 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, California 94568 Webslte: http://www.ci.dublin.ca.us By Hand Delivery December 7, 2006 Leslie Griffy Mercury News 19riffy@gmail.com (408) 839-2927 Dear Ms. Griffy, This letter is in response to your December 4, 2006, Public Records request pursuant to Government Code 96250 et seq. Therein, you request a variety of information and documents related to activities at Dublin Police Services. As advised during your visit to our business office, the City of Dublin contracts for law enforcement services through Alameda County Sheriff's Office. All sworn personnel are Alameda County employees; therefore, much of the information sought in your request would be maintained by the Sheriff's Office of Alameda County. Weare making available with this letter for your inspection the records in the City's possession ,that you have requested. As we note below, certain documents you have requested may be in the possession of the Alameda County Sheriff's Office. You may wish to contact the Sheriff's Administrative Office at 1401 Lakeside Drive, lih Floor, Oakland, California; the telephone number is 510-272-6878. We respond to your requests item by item below: 1. We are making the most recent record of asset forfeiture fund disbursements available for you to inspect. 2. The requested documents, ifthey exist, are not in City's possession. The documents may be maintained by the Alameda County Sheriff. 3. The requested documents, if they exist, are not in City's possession. The documents may be maintained by the Alameda County Sheriff. 4. The requested documents, ifthey exist, are not in City's possession. The documents may be maintained by the Alameda County Sheriff. 5. The requested documents, if they exist, are not in City's possession. The documents may be maintained by the Alameda County Sheriff. Area Code (925) " City f'v1anager 833-6650 " City Council 833-6650 +', Personnel 833-6605 !;O Economic Development 833-6650 Finance 833-6640 . Public Works/Engineering 833-6630 . Parks & Community Service,:; 833-6645 . Police 833-6670 F'ianning/Code Enforcement 833-6610 . Building Inspection 833-6620 . Fire Prevention Bureau 83:,-6606 \ .- 4 dr. Printeci on Recysjed Paoer ATTACHMENT 3 'bb It 6. The requested documents, if they exist, are not in City's possession. The documents may be maintained by the Alameda County Sheriff. 7. There are no death in custody cases on record for Dublin Police Services (Government Code 912525). 8. The requested documents, if they exist, are not in City's possession. The documents may be maintained by the Alameda County Sheriff. 9. The City does not have a policy regarding media relations or public information policy. You may wish to contact Alameda County Sheriff's Office to determine whether it has any such policies that would apply to personnel that provide police services in Dublin. 10. As requested, we are providing you with a copy of the applicable City resolution establishing fees for copies of police reports. That resolution, adopted February 6th, 2001, establishes a charge of $2 for the first eight pages and 25 cents for each additional page of such reports. If you have additional questions about the above information, I can be reached at 925-833-6650. Sincerely, ~C.~ Richard C. Ambrose City Manager cc: Commander Gary L. Thuman, Chief of Dublin Police Services ?- of L{ GL111S 10 ACS FINANCIAL SYSTEM Accou 2.00'.570.003 . 2) OTHER SOURCES OF REVENUE Type options, press Enter. 5=Display 6=Offset Transactions pt JE Date 10 Trx Date Amou - 6/01/200~ ,5, 6/01/06 232 R 6/01/06 2,00 F2=View 2 F3=Exit F12=Cancel F11=Invoice F13=Encumbrance F14=Pu 3o~ 'i General Ledge~ ~nguiry . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Detail--GL100N. . . . .Q~h Lt. . . : R-06012006-232 Line: 5 For.muYa: 0 : Account.. 200.570.003 Acct Desc MISCELLANEOUS Trx Date. . . .. 6/01/2006 SDT 6/02/06 Trx Amount... 2,000.00 Description.. ASSET FORFEIT/WASHINGTON Customer Code Customer Name CCC NARC ENF TEAM DOJ TA . Receipt #. ... 83252 CHEK Invoice Code. Project. . . . . . F3=Exit F12=Cancel . . ... .... ...... ................ ... .......... ITEM 1 qrn1t RESOLUTION NO. 17 - 01 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DlJ"'"BLIN *********** AMENDMENTS TO RESOLUTION NO; 96-84, EXHIBITS 1 AND 7 ADOPTING FEES FOR CERTAIN MUNICIPAL SERVICES \VHEREAS, Resolution No. 96-84 adopting fees, charges, and bond amendments for certain municipal services was adopted by the City Council on August 27, 1984; and \VHEREAS, Resolution No. 120-84, amending Resolution No. 96-84, to allow waiver of fees and charges for specified activities sponsored by Dublin based non-profit groups and organizations was adopted by the City Council on November 13, 1984; and . . . \VHEREAS, due to a change in law, a review of costs involved to provide photo copies of police reports was conducted; and WHEREAS, based upon the examination, the City desires to modify the fee schedule for copies of police reports; and WHEREAS, the City would like to establish a fee to recover costs incurred for the processing of checks returned by the bank due to non-sufficient funds. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Dublin does hereby approve amendments to Resolution Number 96-84, Exhibit 1: Police Services Fees and Cbargesand Exhibit 7: General Fees for Service. Exhibit 1: Police Services Fees and Charges Police Reports - $2 for first eight pages and $0.25 for each additional page Exhibit 7: General Fees for Service Returned Checks - $20 fee PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 6th day of February, 2001. AYES: Councilmembers Lockhart, McCormick, Oravetz, Zika and Mayor Houston NOES: None . ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None ATTEST ~~ K2/G!2-6-01/reso-pdfee.doc (Item 6.4) );f~ ITEM 2 1-\ Dfr r Item # 1 2 3 4 > >-l -3 > (') :t == tr.I ::z: -3 ~ 5 Discussion Request: Most recent asset forfeiture fund disbursements. (See Health & Safety Code SI1495(a)). Response: We are making the most recent record of asset forfeiture fund disbursements available for you to inspect. Explanation: A financial software printout presenting the requested information was attached to the response letter. Request: Most recent summary of officer discipline statistics (See Penal Code Section 832.7(c)). Response: The requested documents, if they exist, are not in City's possession. The documents may be maintained by the Alameda County Sheriff. Explanation: The City is not legally required to maintain persOlmel and discipline records for contract employees as these are not City records. Request: Officer salary schedule - the document fixing the salaries assigned to each rank, grade and step for each peace officer position maintained by the departnzent. Response: The requested documents, if they exist, are not in City's possession. The documents may be maintained by the Alameda County Sheriff. Explanation: The City is not legally required to maintain salary schedule information for contract employees as these are not City records. Request: Individual Officer Compensation Records. Namely, the docurnent or documents disclosing the total dollar compensation actually paid to each peace officer employed by this department for the first 11 months of 2006, identifying the officer only by rank, unless the number of officers occupying that rank is three or fewer, in which case a nUlnber may be assigned, e.g. Officer 1, Officer 2, etc. Response: The requested documents, if they exist, are not in City's possession. The documents may be maintained by the Alameda County Sheriff. Explanation: The City is not legally required to maintain compensation information for contract employees as these are not City records. Request: Officer Workers Compensation Claims. Namely, a copy of all workers compensation claims filed by peace officers employed by this department for the first 11 months of 2006, identifying the officer only by rank, unless the number of officers occupying that rank is three or fewer, in which case a number may be assigned, e.g. Officer 1, Officer 2, etc. Response: The requested documents, i they exist, are not in City's possession. The documents may be Page 1 of3 Referred to ACSO No Points Deducted o Yes Not Rated Yes -10 Yes Not Rated Yes Not Rated o \".;, :-+- 6 maintained by the Alameda County Sheriff. Explanation: The City is not legally required to maintain workers compensation claims information for contract employees as these are not City records. Request: Officer Second Job Records. Namely, a copy of the most current record or records disclosing the Yes second jobs, if any, held by each peach officer employed by this department, identifying the officer only by rank, unless the number of officers occupying that rank is three or fewer, in which case a number may be assigned, e.g. Officer 1, Officer 2, ete. Response: The requested documents, if they exist, are not in City's possession. The documents may be maintained by the Alameda COUll~Y Sheriff. Explanation: The City is not legally required to maintain officers' second job records information for contract employees are these are not City records. Request: The most recent death in custody report sent to the Departrnent of Justice. (See Government Code No j12525.) Response: There are no death in custody cases on record for Dublin Police Services (Government Code j12525). Explanation: No such Dublin Police Services record exists. Request: The complete employment contract of the department's highest ranking peace officer (See Yes Government Code Section 6254.8.) Response: The requested documents, if they exist, are not in City's possession. The documents may be maintained by the Alameda County Sheriff. Explanation: The City is not legally required to maintain employment contract information for contract employees as these are not City records. Request: Media Relations/Public Information Policy/Policies. I would like to obtain a copy of any document No & Yes that states the department's policies and procedures for dealing with requests for information or other activities of journ a lists or news organizations. If there is a policy or procedural guideline for dealing with requires for information from non-media citizens, please provide a copy of that as well. Please also provide, whether included in the general policies or not, any orders or directives concerning: - the public disclosure of the names of officers whose use of a weapon or other conduct has led to the death of a person, and the timing of the disclosure; - the public disclosure of the names of minors who are accident or crime victims but are not suspected of committing crimes or otherwise subject to juvenile court jurisdictions. Response: The City does not have a policy regarding media relations or public information policy. You may wish to contact Alameda County Sheriff's Office to determine whether it has any such policies that would apply to personnel that provide police services in Dublin. Explanation: The City has no existing policy. Media relations for Dublin Police Services are managed by personnel employed by Alameda County Sheriff's Office. -+- Not Rated 7 o 8 -10 9 Not Rated r~2~ Page 2 of3 10 Request: Fees charged for copies of crime reports provided to crirne victims or their representatives for No 0 insurance or other compensation purposes. I would like to obtain a copy of whatever document states the fee to be charges for records or reports including "the names and addresses of persons involved in, or witnesses other than confidential informants to, the incident. The description of any property involved, the date, time, and location of the incident, all diagrams, statements of the parties involved in the incident, the statements of all witnesses, other than confidential inforrnants, to the victims of an incident, or an authorized representative thereof, an insurance carrier against which a claim has been or might be made, and any person suffering bodily injwy or property damage or loss as the result of the incident caused by arson, burglary, fire, explosion, larceny, robbery, carjacking, vandalism, vehicle theft, or a crime as defined by subdivision (Q of Section 13960, " as required by Government Code ~6254, subdivision (j). Response: As requested, we are providing you with a copy of the applicable City resolution establishing fees for copies of police reports. That resolution, adopted February 6th, 2001, establishes a charge of$2for the first eight pages and 25 cents for each additional page of such reports. Explanation: In addition to the explanation outlined, a copy of the resolution was attached to the response letter. -- IV <:::1 CJ~ ---+- Page 3 of3 I-~Db ;i MEMORANDUM To: League Membership Date: January 16, 2007 Re: Public Records Act "Audit" by Californians Aware On January 12,2007, Californians Aware ("CalAware") released its self-described "audit" of 216 law enforcement agencies throughout the state. This survey was conducted December 4, 2006 by employees and volunteers associated with various newspapers and broadcast news organizations. The survey consisted of both oral and written requests for law enforcement related documents. Agency responses were graded on a 100 point scale. Each agency, based on its final numerical score, was assigned a corresponding grade from A to F. CalAware compiled the grades for law enforcement agencies statewide, and concluded that collectively, law enforcements agencies earned an F grade. Based on our review ofthe information provided by CalAware, and information from those agencies subject to the "audit", the League has serious concerns regarding the methodology used by CalAware, and the accuracy of the reports submitted by the volunteer auditors. As discussed above, CalAware's methodology consisted of grading agency responses on a 100-point scale. Points were deducted where CalAware felt that an agency had not adequately complied with what CalA ware believed to be the appropriate response to the public records request. But the bases for these deductions are problematic. For example, many agencies suffered a 20-point deduction because they requested that the auditor fill out a request form. The concern expressed by CalAware is that these forms included lines for the auditor's name and affiliation. California courts have held that the agencies cannot require a requesting party provide a name or other identifying information as a condition to submitting a public records request. But CalA ware does not seem to have distinguished between those agencies that requested the form be submitted voluntarily, as opposed to where an agency may have improperly required the auditor to submit the form. This overly rigid interpretation of state law may have unfairly penalized agencies that use a form to assist both the requesting party and agency with public records requests. A second example concerns agencies that were penalized because they referred auditors to another department in the city for particular records being requested. For example, many agencies referred auditors to their City Clerk for copies of the Form 700s for the police chief and other department management. This resulted in a 1 O-point penalty. The concern expressed by CalAware is that the police department should be prepared to respond to all requests for any documents. They refer to this as "one stop shopping". 1 t) ~ 2... A TT ACHMENT 5 14f>bl ~+ But there is nothing in state law that requires "one stop shopping", nor does this seem particularly practical. With respect to Form 700s, state law provides that they are to be filed with the City Clerk. It makes little sense to penalize an agency for directing an auditor to the specific public official charged with maintaining a public record. Based on the documents requested, an agency could be penalized as much as 30 points because of the potential need to refer auditors to other departments within the city. Thus, cities can potentially be subject to as many as 50 penalty points while otherwise fully complying with the Public Records Act. This would result in a D grade, even ifthe city fully and timely responded to the records request. Further, it appears some cities were penalized for failing to make records available immediately in response to an oral request, despite the fact that the Public Records Act allows agencies 10 days in which to respond to a request. And some agencies appear to have been penalized for not producing documents where the auditor was specifically informed that the requested document did not exist. Regardless of these concerns, cities should not dismiss these results out of hand as they do provide some important lessons when responding to public records requests: · Customer service remains a key factor in responding to requests from the public, whether the requests are for public records or for some other purpose. · While forms may assist with responding to public records requests, staff needs to be aware that they cannot condition disclosure on the requesting party providing a name, affiliation, or contact information. Further, staff should not be inquiring as to the reason the requesting party wants the record. This is irrelevant as to whether the requested documents must be disclosed or not. · While CalAware may disagree, it is appropriate for staff to refer a request to another appropriate persQn in the city, or in certain circumstances, to refer the request to the City Attorney's office. But staff needs to be aware that the Public Records Act does impose deadlines for responding to a public records request. So staff should ensure that referrals to the City Attorney's office are not unduly delayed. 7- Ot- 2-