Showing posts with label Refusal to comply w/PRA request. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Refusal to comply w/PRA request. Show all posts

Friday, August 31, 2007

Goodbye Jeffrey "yougofree.com" Schwartz

Today was Schwartz's last day in the Humboldt County DA's Office. This is a good thing. 'Bout goddam time.

Remember, Under Gallegos the DA's Office has "lost:"
DDA Zach Bird
DDA Jose Mendez
DDA Ed Borg
DDA Worth Dikeman
DDA Frank Dunnick
DDA Eamon Fitzgerald
DDA Heather Gimle
DDA Paul Hagen
DDA Nicole Hansen
DDA Shane Hauschild
DDA Andrew Isaac
DDA Allison Jackson
DDA Harry Kassakian
DDA Elizabeth Norton
DDA Murat Ozgur
Patrick Pekin
DDA Amanda Penny
DDA Gloria Albin-Sheets
Jennifer Strona
DDA Andy Truitt
DDA Nandor Vadas
DDA Rob Wade
Bill Rodstrom
PLUS:
Investigator Chris Andrews
Investigator Chris Cook
Investigator Jim Dawson (retired)
Paul's secretary Gail Dias
Office Manager Linda Modell
Investigator Eric Olson
Investigator Kathy Philp (retired)
Investigator Dave Dave Rybarczyk
Investigator Dave Walker
FROM CAST:
Child Interview Specialist Laura Todd
Senior Legal Secretary Melissa Arnold
Alternate Child Interviewer Jennifer Maguire

And, of course: Schwartz and Stoen.

Question, still, is "Who's left?"

Answer:
Maggie Fleming, Max Cardoza, Wes Keat, Stacey Eads (on leave),
Allan Dollison, Arnie Klein, Jeff Schwartz,
Mary McCarthy, Davina Smith and Randy Mailman (the newest hire)

Two deputies leave DA's Office 3/8/2007
Update: 6/12/2007
County Counsel Kim Kerr - Longtime employee of the county takes job in Ione

8/12/07
Like Stoen leaving, this is good news... "yougofree.com" Jeffrey Scwhartz is leaving the DA's Office, going in to private practice (No surprise since he has had his "practice" listed in the phone book for the better part of a year, while acting as a prosecutor, which should be a big no-no.) 8/31/07, yougofree.com is gone.

1/2008 Davina Smith moves to the County Counsel's Office.

9/25/08 Deputy District Attorney Kelly Neel, who has been handling the (Belant) case, will be leaving the office for another job at the County Counsel Office, Gallegos said.

1/5/10 Kathleen Bryson, hired and reputedly fired by Gallegos, is now running against him... ◼ Local attorney throws hat in the ring for DA

Thursday, July 05, 2007

So.

I'll be resubmitting my Public Records Act Request for the Child Abuse Services Team (CAST) information. In my conversation with Chief Investigator Mike Hislop, I was under the impression that he agreed that the agendas, minutes and sign in sheets for CAST meetings were certainly not "evidentiary" in nature, as Gallegos has claimed. And I have waited. But, the documents have not been delivered.

developing...

related:
Round Two
What is there to hide?
Public Records Act Request
Gallegos puts Jeffrey "yougofree.com" Schwartz in charge of CAST
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

Thursday, May 24, 2007

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.

Wednesday, May 23, 2007

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.

Tuesday, May 22, 2007

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.

Monday, May 21, 2007

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.

Tuesday, May 08, 2007

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