Who voted for this?

Who will cop to sneaking this shit into the budget bill?

◼ Transparency in California Should Not Be Optional - eff

AB 76 was passed by the legislature Friday evening, unbeknownst to many journalists and open-government advocates attempting to follow the vote....

Senate Bill 71 and AB 76, which could be passed and sent to the governor's offiice on Saturday, would allow government bodies on the local level—such as cities, counties, sheriff’s departments and education systems—to choose whether or not to follow certain requirements under the California Public Records Act. These provisions would be downgraded from law to mere “best practices.” Gone would be the deadlines for determining whether records are disclosable and notifying the member of the public who requested the records. Gone would be the requirement that agencies assist members of the public in identifying which records would answer their questions. Gone would be the mandate that agencies turn over documents in an electronic format if the records have already been digitized.

A local government wouldn’t even have to publicly disclose its records-disclosure policy in writing. The bills only say an agency must “announce orally” once a year if it decides not to follow the new “best practices.”

The impact on government watchdogs, journalists and the public—including EFF—would be profound. The legislation would create long waits for access to records, allow agencies to interpret requests narrowly (say, rejecting requests unless the citizen asks for a specific document), and leave the requesters waiting in limbo indefinitely as government agencies will have no incentive to be helpful.

◼ California Legislature Guts State Records Law - courthousenews.com

"It's not about saving money - it's all about curtailing an open, transparent government that can be held accountable," Yee told the San Jose Mercury News. "The only way we're held accountable is when the public has the information to understand what were doing."

Gallegos' Use of Force Policy

Click here

Anybody see anything confidential in here? Anything to cause the DA to refuse to release it until forced to do so with a public records act request from the Times Standard?

Requests, Public Records And Otherwise

On 12-09-2004, Lisa LaDeRoute posted this discouraged comment on her CourtTV Message Board: "Well here it is the 9th of Dec., the DA's office was suppose to respond to my written request by 12/10/04. According to the Penal codes, and regulations that I sited. I'm not surprised that I haven't even received an acknowledgement. I'm going to mail another copy, the first I sent by fax, and I'm going to hand deliver another copy to the court house, which will include a proof of service. I want to make sure there is no room for debate that they did not receive my written request. Then I will proceed with the legal action. Wish me luck!"

On 05-11-2005, she says: "Well today's the day I'm suppose to contact one of the authorities who made a formal report, about 2 weeks ago, to the DA requesting that I receive all the information in his file regarding my sister's case, including my sister's remains. I've been trying not to be too optomistic. After all, the request was already denied by another authority, who is not involved in the case in anyway, less than 2 months ago.

Still, I've been trying to think about funeral plans, just so I'm not caught off guard, if they do release my sister's remains. I'm really not sure how to approach the services after all this time. I guess I'll find out today, whether or not I need to make those plans.

I'm dreading making that call. My feeling is if the request had been approved last week, which is when I was told the decision would be made, then I'm pretty sure someone would have already called me. I just need to make sure I'm prepared for yet another major disappointment, before I make that call.

Regular readers here know that the DA does not like to comply with Public Records Act Requests. She has posted pdf's of correspondence and other documents at www.2006justiceforall.com

DA gun request still on hold

A Humboldt County District Attorney's Office request from May to purchase eight AR-15 assault rifles is still on hold, but a decision may be coming soon...

...The guns were part of an order that included protective vests, badges, fatigues and other police officer equipment. The money for the purchase comes from the District Attorney's Asset Forfeiture trust funds. Read the full story

For more info, click on the Gallegos/Assault Team, and Public Records labels/links below.

Now he's "updating" the use of force policy

County keeps safety on DA rifle request
After the meeting (between Gallegos, his Chief Investigator Mike Hislop, Assistant District Attorney Wes Keat, Assistant County Counsel Wendy Chaitin and Risk Manager Kim Kerr) Wednesday, Hislop delivered a copy of the district attorney's use of force policy to the Times-Standard. The paper had asked Gallegos for the policy through a California Public Records Act request on May 18, after Gallegos said the document was not public and refused to turn over a copy.

Gallegos said in an e-mail that he forwarded the request to Hislop, who was on vacation last week.

Hislop said he receive the paper's request on his Blackberry on the way back from Baja California. Hislop said he had already finished working on the policy before the Times-Standard requested it, and has since given it to county counsel for analysis.
”This is still under review,” Hislop said.

UPDATE:
Bringing policies up to date 06/01/2007 The Times-Standard
The office of the Humboldt County district attorney made public its “use of force” policy this week, after initially claiming it was not a public document. It was a good decision. Such a policy provides guidelines for use of force to reduce indecision in a crisis situation. Plus, as the California Peace Officers' Association says, it helps create public confidence in law enforcement.

We also feel a sense of assurance that the county, before giving its approval for the district attorney to buy investigators eight AR-15 assault rifles, is asking for an updating and modernization of the use of force policy, and that Chief Investigator Mike Hislop is planning to ramp up weapons training for his people from once a year to four times a year.

The rationale for making sure that investigators have state-of-the-art equipment, including weapons, is sound. In a county such as ours, with a lot of wild remote corners hiding Mexican cartel pot farms and meth labs, officers should be ready for surprises.

But it's important that, in its policy update, the district attorney's office view its role as investigators and not enforcers. They're not Lone Rangers, and have plenty of trained backup to support them.

Comments at TS

But the Times Standard did not print the policy?

Further UPDATE:
On Thursday, I received a call from Gallegos' Chief Investigator, Mike Hislop. He asked about the Public Records Act Request (CAST), if I had gotten what I asked for. I said no, and explained that I had gotten 2/3 of one of the 6 items on the list, and that it looked like I was going to have to resubmit it, since it doesn't seem to me that meeting agendas, minutes and attendance sheets are "evidenciary" in nature, among other things. He seemed to agree. The end result of the conversation was promising. Perhaps there is a possibility that the DA's Office will comply with the request and put an end to the game-playing. I will keep you 'updated.'

Enough secrecy in the DA's office!

I couldn't agree more.

Enough secrecy in the DA's office
The Times-Standard Editorial Article Launched: 05/25/2007 04:29:32 AM PDT

The chief prosecutor of Humboldt County has us scratching our heads with his waffling over making his office's “use of force” policy available to the public.

The issue arose when District Attorney Paul Gallegos and his new investigator, former Eureka police Sgt. Mike Hislop, proposed to beef up their firepower with the purchase of eight AR-15 semiautomatic rifles. This triggered questions from Loretta Nicklaus, Humboldt County's administrative officer, who wondered whether the DA had the need, training and policies in place for such an arsenal -- a use of force policy, in particular.

While working on a story about the new weapons, two Times-Standard reporters sought a copy of the DA's policy. Gallegos initially said he would get them a copy, then changed his mind and wouldn't even let them view the document. The Times-Standard then made a formal request a week ago under the state Public Records Act. Gallegos has 10 days to release the use of force policy, or to explain his legal reasons for withholding it.

Since then, Gallegos has offered these comments about the issue, via e-mail:

* “I never said that the information was not available under the Freedom of Information Act. Quite the contrary, I informed you that our use of force policy is not a public record.” To throw around some legal Latin, that's a non sequitur. A FOIA request is the federal equivalent of the California Public Records Act, and is a tool used to pry PUBLIC records out of reluctant PUBLIC officials.

* “I have some reluctance to make use of force policies public information . . . especially when there is no claim that anyone (in the DA's office) has unlawfully used force.”

That has no bearing on whether a policy is public or not. But perhaps Gallegos and his team are being overly sensitive to community polarization about four shooting deaths involving Eureka police officers, going back to Cheri Lyn Moore more than a year ago. DA investigations and findings on three of those deaths are pending, including Moore's.

* “I also informed you that, if you heard from others that (our use of force policy is a public record), to let me know and I would consider others' determinations.”

The Eureka Police Department and the county sheriff's department say their use of force policies are open to the public, as does the DA in San Diego County. So do two open-records experts we checked with -- attorneys who said the law is clear: The public not only has a right to view use of force policies, but to receive copies.

Also, the California Peace Officers' Association says such policies are important in creating public confidence in law enforcement. To do that, of course, the public must know what the policy is.

We have to wonder: Why all this bobbing and weaving, especially by somebody who should know the law? If the DA's office has a use of force policy, let's see it. If it does not, then it should 'fess up and create one (the California Peace Officers' Association has a sample you can adapt). Then put it online, so everyone can see it. That should free up time to produce the long-overdue report on Moore's death.

Round Two

A little over a year ago, on April 3, 2006, I filed a Public Records Act Request with the DA's office relating to Grants. On April 14th the DA's Office invoked it's right to a 14 day extension. On May 4th, the DA's Office attempted to limit the information releases, citing "pending litigation" as justification. Believing that justification to be incorrect, I filed a second demand, cc'ing the media. The next day, Richard Hendry from County Counsel's Office, notified me that the information I had requested was ready, told me where i could go to pick it up and how much it would cost.

In the course of "watching paul" I have learned quite a bit about Public Records Act Requests. Whenever I have filed a request with a governmental or granting agency, the requests are handled with remarkable professionalism. First, there is an immediate email response letting me know that they have received the request, telling me who would be handling it (with contact information), letting me know when they would have the information, and, in the event that they needed additional time, there would be a timely email letting me know. On a few occasions, there would be follow up phone calls to further clarify what I was looking for.

Fast forward to today, with the Public Records Act Request regarding the CAST statistics from Humboldt County District Attorney Paul Gallegos, I have received NO acknowledgement of receipt of the request. NO information was provided on the date it was due. NO request for additional time. NO notice that the information requested had been sent out.

Thus it was a surprise to receive a packet from Humboldt County Counsel Richard Hendry.

The packet inside states that he is responding on behalf of the District Attorney's Office, and it is dated May 18th, 2007. But, the packet is postmarked May 22nd.

So, it would seem that an apology of sorts would be in order.

BUT. Gallegos has once again refused to release information that is requested.

Among other things, Hendry, writing on behalf of Gallegos, claims that the attendance/sign in sheets for CAST meetings do not have to be released because they are investigatory in nature. That the agendas and minutes of CAST meetings do not have to be released because they are investigatory in nature.

Quote: The District Attorney's Office has determined that, to the extent this request seeks the disclosure of records of investigatory files, those records are completely exempt from disclosure under Government code Section 6254(f), which includes District Attorney case files [Rivero v Superior Court (1997) 54 CalApp.4th 1048], and continues to apply even if the investigation is closed [Williams v Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.App.4th 337]. The exemption for the records of law enforcement agencies contained in Government Code section 6254(f) has been broadly interpreted [Los Angleles Police Dept. v. Superior Court (1977) 65 Cal. App.3d 661; Northern Cal. Police Practices Project v. Craig (1979) 90 Cal.App.3d 116].

The District Attorney's Office has also determined that this request seeks records that are exempt from disclosure under Government Code section 6254(k), in that it pertains to records the disclosure of which is exempted or prohibited pursuant to state law, including provisions of the Evidence Code relating to privilege. This request seeks records pertaining to the identification, investigation, prevention and treatment of child abuse, and are thus records concerning juveniles protected from disclosure pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 827 [see, In re Keisha T (1995) 38 Cal. App.4th 220] This is so even when a juvenile dependency petition had not been filed; if a child has either suffered or would likely suffer serious neglect or abuse, the disclosure of records is within the sole jurisdiction of the juvenile court, and not available for disclosure absent an Order of the juvenile court [In re Elijah S. (2005) 125 Cal. App.4th 1532] Accordingly, there are no records to disclose in response to this request.

You know - this is pretty silly. I'm not asking for case files. There was no request for any information relating to any juveniles.

That part of the request, pure and simple, was to see whether or not either Gallegos or Schwartz attend CAST meetings. and what have been the problems and concerns that the Advisory Board may have with the way that this multidisciplinary program is being administered by the DA's Office.

CAST - the Child Abuse Services Team - is a multi-disciplinary team comprised of various agencies like the law enforcement agencies (APD, EPD, FPD, etc), Child Welfare Services, The Rape Crisis Team, Mental Health, Probation Department, and individual Tribes, which originally came together in order to identify and help kids who may have been subject to sexual or physical abuse and neglect. The agencies are independent from each other, but share information and a common ground of trying to bring everyone to the table. Those agendas and minutes and attendance sheets are public information.

Again, I ask, what is there to hide?

Note: I have received requests from some reporters for copies of this packet and I am happy to comply.

I want to add that other participating agencies not only receive copies of the agendas and minutes, but they file and keep them. So to think that by refusing to disclose them they will never see the light of day is, really, bordering on insane.

End of Day 6 (actually 16) - but word is spreading

Friday, Saturday, Sunday, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday - Still no word from Gallegos. At this point it's fair to say he is refusing to comply with the law, refusing to provide Public Information under the Public Records Act. He has failed to follow the law.

But word is spreading:

Google Alert for: Paul Gallegos:
Follow up on failure to comply with Public Records Act Request By Rose(Rose)
To: Paul Gallegos Humboldt County District Attorney's Office 825 Fifth St. Eureka, CA 95501 districtattorney@co.humboldt.ca.us My Public Records Act Request was dated May 8, 2007. By law, you had 10 calendar days in which to provide the ...
watchpaul - http://watchpaul.blogspot.com/

Paying more for CAST

Remember Gallegos asked the Board to "Approve an advanced Step Placement for Deputy District Attorney IV, Jeffrey Schwartz, from Step A to Step E." BECAUSE "Mr. Schwartz has been handling felony and misdemeanor cases for the past 8 months and now is assigned to the Child Abuse Services Team. This entails working with high intensity cases, participating in child abuse interviews and contributing as a member of the Child Abuse Services Team."

Still waiting on that Public Records Act Request. At this point, Gallegos is breaking the law. C'mon, you don't have to rewrite the reports. Just print them. You know, or copy them. Make it so.

What is there to hide?

.
How bad can those stats be? Can they possibly be worse than last year? When Paul Gallegos has had a YEAR to fix the problem?

5:11 PM on Tuesday, May 22nd. Still no response from Gallegos, who by law was required to comply with the Public Records Act request by last Friday, or ask for a 14 day extension if he could justify the delay.

Follow up on Paul Gallegos' failure to comply with Public Records Act Request with the fine print and updates

May 21, 2007

To: Paul Gallegos
Humboldt County District Attorney's Office
825 Fifth St.
Eureka, CA 95501
districtattorney@co.humboldt.ca.us

My Public Records Act Request was dated May 8, 2007. By law, you had
10 calendar days in which to provide the information requested (as shown below). Which means I should have been given the information no
later than Friday, May 18 (last Friday). Today is Monday, May 21,
2007.

I expect to hear from your office today and I expect the information by the close of business tomorrow. This is more than reasonable.

I will also add that I have copies of previous reports (DA Summary,
Interview Summary and Law Enforcement Summary), and I know
not only what the reports look like but what information should be
contained. These reports are routinely kept, they take moments to retrieve
and providing this information should be a simple matter of pushing 'print.' Therefore no delay is justified.

I await an email letting me know it is ready.

###
The fine print:
A. This is a request made under the California Public Records Act. [Government Code 6250-6277].

B. By law you have 10 calendar days in which to respond to this request. [Government Code 6253(c)].

C. The Public Records Act mandates that public records be open to inspection and that every person has a right to inspect any public record unless the record is specifically exempt from disclosure. Unless exempt, upon a request for a copy of records that "reasonably describes an identifiable record or records" you are required to make the records promptly available to any person upon payment of fees covering costs of duplication. [Government Code 6253].

D. In the event that there is any uncertainty as to the identity of any record sought, you are affirmatively required to assist the requesting party in better defining the request so that the records can be located and made available. [Government Code 6253.1].

E. You are required to justify in writing the withholding of any record. [Government Code 6253]. The burden of establishing an exemption is on the public agency. [Vallejos v. California Highway Patrol, 89 CA3d 781, 787 (1979)].

F. The Public Records Act does not limit access to a public record based upon the purpose for which the record is being requested, if the record is otherwise subject to disclosure. [Government Code 6257.5].

G. Agencies are not permitted to delay or obstruct the inspection or copying of public records. The notification of denial of any request for records shall set forth the names and titles or positions of each person responsible for the denial. [Government Code 6253(d)].

H. If a reasonably segregable portion of a record is exempt by law from production, that portion shall be deleted and the balance of the record shall be provided for inspection. [Government Code 6253(a)].

I. The legislative policy behind the Public Records Act favors disclosure. [Berkeley Police Assn. v. City of Berkeley, 76 CA3d 931, 941 (1977)].

J. Any authorized fees will be paid to you on delivery, pursuant to an itemized invoice. BUT - Please note: These are to be billed out at 10 cents per page as per the County's fee structure - and NOT at 25 cents per page which is the County's fee for attorney's discovery. Billing this improperly will result in the county having to issue a refund check.

***
Monday, May 21 came and went with no word from the DA's Office.

Does he have a "Use of Force Policy"?

Concerns raised over DA investigator weapons

"He (Gallegos) said his office has a use of force policy, but refused to turn over a copy to the Times-Standard, saying it's not public record.

The Eureka Police Department and the Humboldt County Sheriff's Department said their use of force policies are public record. The EPD immediately faxed over a copy.

The San Diego County district attorney's office also said its use of force policy is public record."

I say when he does finally come up with one, you ought to google the terminology.

PUBLIC RECORDS ACT REQUEST re: CAST

May 8, 2007
To: Paul Gallegos
Humboldt County District Attorney's Office

PUBLIC RECORD ACT REQUEST - TIME SENSITIVE

Please provide the following:

1. The monthly CAST statistics kept by your office for January 1, 2006 through April 30, 2007 including but not limited to:

a. the CAST Interview Summary (a breakdown of interviews by gender, age, ethnicity, interview type, and referring agency.)

b. the CAST DA Summary containing the breakdown of interviews conducted, cases referred to the DA, cases filed by the DA, cases rejected by the DA, the dispositions of cases and whether they were felony or misdemeanors, whether there was a plea or jury trial, the breakdown in sentencing and whether probation or prison was imposed and the breakdown in length of time of sentences.

c. The CAST Law Enforcement summaries for January 1, 2006 through April 30, 2007, including but not limited to the numbers of interviews brought by each agency and cases submitted by each agency.

2. Case numbers of all child abuse/CAST cases filed by your office between January 1, 2006 and April 30, 2007

3. CAST interview sheets containing the names of all law enforcement and CAST personnel who attended each CAST interview between January 1, 2006 and April 30, 2007 with the understanding that no identifying information of any victim or the victim's family is being requested.

4. Sign in or attendance sheets for all CAST meetings held between January 1, 2006 and April 30, 2007

5. Copies of all minutes and agendas from all CAST advisory monthly meetings from January 2006 to present.

6. Copies of all minutes and agendas from all CAST executive board meetings from January 2006 to present.

---
A. This is a request made under the California Public Records Act. [Government Code 6250-6277].

B. By law you have 10 calendar days in which to respond to this request. [Government Code 6253(c)].
***
RELATED STORIES:
A matter of priorities
ER - Former deputy DA speaks out
ER - Candidates spar over child abuse team
ER - DA's Office yet to respond to request for child abuse records
ER - CAST established with child victims in mind
ER - CAST needs support Gallegos is not providing