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.'
Thursday, May 31, 2007
Wednesday, May 30, 2007
Which rules do you play by?
When it comes to his proposed subdivision in Manila, it looks like Scott Riley has done everything right, played by the rules, and should have expected smooth sailing. He worked with an architect, worked with County staff to work out a PUD, a Planned Unit Development that designates wetlands, provides open space, stays within the density allowed by zoning ordinances, and he went beyond that to include building "green," with photovoltaic shingles, low-e glazing, thermal mass, recycled materials, and more. And. as you can see by the model above, the homes are designed to fit into the beach environment.
He's gone through the process, jumped through the hurdles, and his project is now - or was - before the Planning Commission. County staff had a favorable recommendation. But Reggae on the River took up the bulk of the May 3rd meeting, and so his project was ordered continued until June 7th.
So what happened between that meeting and now?
Riley has now been told that his project will not be heard on June 7th, and that: "Per Kirk Girard: We need to meet with the applicant and, if he agrees, his agent, Jesse and design consultant, John Ash. The Planning Commission will NOT approve the project as designed and neither will The Coastal Commission."
Really?
Who decided that? And when?
Wouldn't there be Brown Act violations if there was some sort of back-door meeting or negotiation, held out of the view of the public on a project that is already part of a public process?
The email trails show not a meeting, and not the Planning Commissioners, but correspondence (initiated May 14, AFTER the Planning Commission meeting) between John Woolley, Michael Fennel, and county staff.
Coastal resources?
An act to add Section 31410 to the Public Resources Code, relating
to coastal resources. INTRODUCED BY Assembly Member Berg
AB 1568, as introduced, Berg. Coastal resources: Ma-le'l Dunes.
Existing law requires the State Coastal Conservancy to coordinate the development of the California Coastal Trail.
This bill would designate the portion of the Ma-le'l Dunes in Humboldt County that is part of the California Coastal Trail and that is under the jurisdiction of the conservancy as the Senator Wesley Chesbro Coastal Trail. The bill would require the conservancy to erect appropriate signage to reflect the designation and to cause all directories and other publications concerning the California Coastal Trail to reflect the designation as the publications are periodically revised.
IT PASSED.
Chesbro trail
The Times-Standard Article Launched: 06/13/2007 04:15:13 AM PDT
The state Senate Natural Resources Committee passed a bill Tuesday that would designate a part of the Ma-le'l Dunes as the “Sen. Wesley Chesbro Coastal Trail.”
The Ma-le'l Dunes, located west of Arcata, are part of the coastal dune system of the north and south spit of Humboldt Bay.
Chesbro represented the North Coast region in the state Senate from 1998 to 2006. He authored legislation to direct the State Coastal Conservancy to develop a California Coastal Trail action plan to be completed by 2008. Chesbro currently serves on the Integrated Waste Management Board
He previously was a Humboldt County supervisor and an Arcata City councilman. Chesbro has been a resident of Humboldt County for 28 years.
Assembly Bill 1568 now goes to the Senate Appropriations Committee.
Seems that our Senators would have something better to do with their time.
Chesbro Trail bill passes in Senate
Bill for Chesbro Dune Trail sent to governor
to coastal resources. INTRODUCED BY Assembly Member Berg
AB 1568, as introduced, Berg. Coastal resources: Ma-le'l Dunes.
Existing law requires the State Coastal Conservancy to coordinate the development of the California Coastal Trail.
This bill would designate the portion of the Ma-le'l Dunes in Humboldt County that is part of the California Coastal Trail and that is under the jurisdiction of the conservancy as the Senator Wesley Chesbro Coastal Trail. The bill would require the conservancy to erect appropriate signage to reflect the designation and to cause all directories and other publications concerning the California Coastal Trail to reflect the designation as the publications are periodically revised.
IT PASSED.
Chesbro trail
The Times-Standard Article Launched: 06/13/2007 04:15:13 AM PDT
The state Senate Natural Resources Committee passed a bill Tuesday that would designate a part of the Ma-le'l Dunes as the “Sen. Wesley Chesbro Coastal Trail.”
The Ma-le'l Dunes, located west of Arcata, are part of the coastal dune system of the north and south spit of Humboldt Bay.
Chesbro represented the North Coast region in the state Senate from 1998 to 2006. He authored legislation to direct the State Coastal Conservancy to develop a California Coastal Trail action plan to be completed by 2008. Chesbro currently serves on the Integrated Waste Management Board
He previously was a Humboldt County supervisor and an Arcata City councilman. Chesbro has been a resident of Humboldt County for 28 years.
Assembly Bill 1568 now goes to the Senate Appropriations Committee.
Seems that our Senators would have something better to do with their time.
Chesbro Trail bill passes in Senate
Bill for Chesbro Dune Trail sent to governor
Monday, May 28, 2007
News from Venezuela on the closing of Radio Caracas Televisión (RCTV)
From Daniel in Venezuela
(KEEP CHECKING IN -HE UPDATES REGULARLY. Link is in the sidebar under blogs)
To close yet another exhausting day (and it is not over) I thought abut putting as it the Veneconomy editorial. To understand some of the reasons that push people to protest you could do worse than read this editorial (outside Globovision there are people protesting in their favor, in Valencia there were injured students and tomorrow we expect more campuses to join in, while Chavez is nowhere to be seen, his usual coward self)
--- --- --- --- --- --- ---
To the accompaniment of alarms, pot-banging and protests by the vast majority of Venezuelans, the government brought down the curtain on Radio Caracas Televisión (RCTV) at midnight on Sunday, so perpetrating the worst confiscation of the freedom of expression by any government ever in Venezuela and perhaps in Latin America in the last 35 years. Read the rest
More: Silent Airwaves - The End
Countdown to RCTV closing
Podcast - Venezuela: the closing of RCTV
...Takes an hour - Venezuela: the closing of RCTV - Current Events - May 26 - Chavez closes Venezuela's largest TV station
Update: 5/30/07
So it is like that: Chavez won in December 2006 with 63% of the vote and today half of the country was out of order, and the other half barely coping. The love fest that should have happened as of December 4, usually called a political honey moon, fizzled in a very few days and since late December the tensions have increased to the point that Chavez today is openly threatening Globovision with closing. And, make this very clear in your minds, he has only himself to blame. I do not know whether he means it as he claims he meant it in 2002 so he could purge the army and PDVSA, but it certainly looks like quite a mess today. One thing is certain if purges are the objective again: his targets are the media and closing freedom of expression, the last obstacle for absolute control of the country until kingdom comes (whichever kingdom comes first)
(KEEP CHECKING IN -HE UPDATES REGULARLY. Link is in the sidebar under blogs)
To close yet another exhausting day (and it is not over) I thought abut putting as it the Veneconomy editorial. To understand some of the reasons that push people to protest you could do worse than read this editorial (outside Globovision there are people protesting in their favor, in Valencia there were injured students and tomorrow we expect more campuses to join in, while Chavez is nowhere to be seen, his usual coward self)
--- --- --- --- --- --- ---
To the accompaniment of alarms, pot-banging and protests by the vast majority of Venezuelans, the government brought down the curtain on Radio Caracas Televisión (RCTV) at midnight on Sunday, so perpetrating the worst confiscation of the freedom of expression by any government ever in Venezuela and perhaps in Latin America in the last 35 years. Read the rest
More: Silent Airwaves - The End
Countdown to RCTV closing
Podcast - Venezuela: the closing of RCTV
...Takes an hour - Venezuela: the closing of RCTV - Current Events - May 26 - Chavez closes Venezuela's largest TV station
Update: 5/30/07
So it is like that: Chavez won in December 2006 with 63% of the vote and today half of the country was out of order, and the other half barely coping. The love fest that should have happened as of December 4, usually called a political honey moon, fizzled in a very few days and since late December the tensions have increased to the point that Chavez today is openly threatening Globovision with closing. And, make this very clear in your minds, he has only himself to blame. I do not know whether he means it as he claims he meant it in 2002 so he could purge the army and PDVSA, but it certainly looks like quite a mess today. One thing is certain if purges are the objective again: his targets are the media and closing freedom of expression, the last obstacle for absolute control of the country until kingdom comes (whichever kingdom comes first)
Sunday, May 27, 2007
Hysterical! (with links)
It really has been a funny week, capped off today with Richard Salzman's latest "My Word." He's complaining about "professional spin doctors ... repeating ... worn-out arguments" being hired to "badger county government and bamboozle the public..." He talks of "another front group ... shedding crocodile tears.." And he asks "Where will (fill in the blank's) concern for our community be the day after (the) paychecks stop coming in? Will (fill in the blank) ... just go on to (fill in the blank's) next lucrative public relations campaign?"
Hysterical! Like so many of his others, you just have to try reading it, but substitute his name everywhere he says "Kay Backer."
Funny - it just sounded so FAMILIAR! somehow -
You know that first line? How often is the Times-Standard going to subject its readers to the repeated rants of...
Well, then there's his previous rant against Backer. Is it identical? Virtually?
HELP is of no help to Humboldt
My Word by Richard Salzman
Article Launched: 04/13/2006 04:27:25 AM PDT
In response to Kay Backer's My Word of March 22, “Getting Humboldt leaders to lead”: Kay Backer is a paid professional spin doctor from Sacramento. Hired by local developers, she is paid to badger county government and bamboozle the public. She feigns concern for our families by shedding crocodile tears about so-called affordable housing here in Humboldt County....
So - How long are we going to be subjected to the repeated rants of...Richard Salzman?
Hysterical! Like so many of his others, you just have to try reading it, but substitute his name everywhere he says "Kay Backer."
Funny - it just sounded so FAMILIAR! somehow -
You know that first line? How often is the Times-Standard going to subject its readers to the repeated rants of...
Well, then there's his previous rant against Backer. Is it identical? Virtually?
HELP is of no help to Humboldt
My Word by Richard Salzman
Article Launched: 04/13/2006 04:27:25 AM PDT
In response to Kay Backer's My Word of March 22, “Getting Humboldt leaders to lead”: Kay Backer is a paid professional spin doctor from Sacramento. Hired by local developers, she is paid to badger county government and bamboozle the public. She feigns concern for our families by shedding crocodile tears about so-called affordable housing here in Humboldt County....
So - How long are we going to be subjected to the repeated rants of...Richard Salzman?
Friday, May 25, 2007
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.
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.
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.
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 ...
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 ...
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.
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.
Gallegos' answers don't add up
New questions arise after Gallegos' answers about rifles
Asset forfeiture operations, investigations and gang and probation sweeps are among the explanations provided by Humboldt County District Attorney Paul Gallegos for his proposed purchase of eight AR-15 semiautomatic rifles, currently waylaid by county administrators over liability and conflict-of-interest concerns.
But some of these explanations have raised more questions than they’ve answered, including why DA investigators would need heavier firepower than other law enforcement officers participating in the same operations.
Officials said Humboldt County Gang Task Force members conduct gang sweeps armed with standard-issue sidearms, and probation officers participating in the same sweeps carry no firearms at all.
In his initial Feb. 14 request for supplemental funds from the asset forfeiture trust fund managed by the California Attorney General’s Office, Gallegos said the purchase of unspecified clothing, safety equipment, portable radios, bullet-proof vests, rifles, a gun safe and other miscellaneous equipment would “directly contribute to further seizures and forfeitures by enhancing the district attorney’s current and future forfeiture operations and investigations.”
On May 15, when he was asked by The Eureka Reporter in what capacity investigators would use the gear, Gallegos did not mention asset forfeiture and said instead, “For investigations.”
He was asked the same question in various forms by Arcata Eye Editor Kevin Hoover during a radio interview Thursday, broadcast live on KHUM-FM, and Gallegos responded that the items would be used in a number of contexts, including in sweeps conducted by the Humboldt County Gang Task Force.
“They wouldn’t be wearing this stuff … on their everyday duties,” Hoover said. “You don’t go out in the world with assault rifles and vests on, the full regalia.”
“They would wear it whenever they are out doing things like gang task force sweeps,” Gallegos said, “all those sorts of things that they have to do. So absolutely they would.”
In the course of the KHUM interview, Gallegos twice mentioned the gang task force, a multi-agency group that conducts an average of two sweeps each year, according to Eureka Police Capt. Murl Harpham.
The task force had not conducted a sweep since September, Harpham said, until Friday, the day after the interview took place.
A news release issued Saturday by the Eureka Police Department reported the participation of the DA’s Office, and Harpham confirmed Monday that one DA investigator was present.
But during the sweep, rifles, semiautomatic or otherwise, were reportedly not in use by anyone.
“EPD officers just used standard sidearms,” said EPD Public Information Officer Suzie Owsley, who went out with one of three teams during the sweep Friday. “I didn’t see anyone with a big gun.”
Brenda Godsey, public information officer for the Humboldt County Sheriff’s Office, said the deputies who participated in the gang sweep also used standard sidearms, in this case .40-caliber Glocks.
“Gang task force sweeps are just knock-and-talks,” Harpham said. “That’s usually how they go. We don’t do the high-profile arrests. If we had someone that was highly dangerous, we wouldn’t use the gang task force to go after them. We’d use SWAT or the (Humboldt County) Drug Task Force.”
HCDTF Commander Jack Nelsen confirmed Monday that the DA’s Office also participates on the more active and heavily armed drug task force, but Nelsen said only one DA investigator was involved.
In the KHUM interview, Gallegos also mentioned probation sweeps, but Humboldt County Probation Division Director Bill Damiano said his officers, who participate in both gang and probation sweeps, do not carry firearms.
“We have an arming policy,” Damiano said Tuesday, “but we currently do not have any officers who have applied and qualified to carry firearms.”
Gallegos has maintained that the purpose of the equipment is to ensure the safety of his investigators.
“Our officers have to be adequately armed,” he told Hoover. “The hope is that they would never have to use them, but that doesn’t mean you don’t arm them.”
All five members of the Humboldt County Board of Supervisors were questioned in an e-mail sent Thursday by The Eureka Reporter about whether they clearly understood from Gallegos’ original budget request that he planned to purchase semiautomatic rifles for each of his investigators and whether, knowing that now, they would support the expenditure of funds for this purpose.
Only 5th District Supervisor Jill Geist responded to the e-mail.
“The item on [the] consent calendar prepared and submitted by the district attorney and approved by the board was to authorize a supplemental transfer of funds for the purchase of safety-related equipment,” Geist wrote.
“The DA hired three investigators who needed supplies and safety gear, including firearms. The DA has sufficient funds to transfer from the Fixed Asset Account, and that action requires board approval. Our staff is responsible for processing requisitions, purchasing and ensuring that items authorized for purchase do not expose the county to unnecessary liability.
“While processing the requisition, a concern was raised due to the expansion of firearm (rifle) to include assault rifles. County staff is exercising due diligence in raising the question. The [County Administrative Officer] is scheduled to meet with the DA on the 30th of May to review the request and receive necessary clarifications.”
The second question Geist did not answer, stating that it presented a potential violation of the Ralph M. Brown Act, possibly because a response to it by all five supervisors could be construed as an informal, undisclosed meeting held by elected officials.
But there was little danger of that.
E-mail receipts indicate Supervisor John Woolley opened the e-mail Thursday morning, and Roger Rodoni opened it Monday afternoon. Jimmy Smith deleted it Monday morning without having opened it, and as of press time Tuesday, Board Chairperson Bonnie Neely has taken no action on the e-mail at all.
None of the four has responded to the questions.
Copyright (C) 2005, The Eureka Reporter. All rights reserved.
Asset forfeiture operations, investigations and gang and probation sweeps are among the explanations provided by Humboldt County District Attorney Paul Gallegos for his proposed purchase of eight AR-15 semiautomatic rifles, currently waylaid by county administrators over liability and conflict-of-interest concerns.
But some of these explanations have raised more questions than they’ve answered, including why DA investigators would need heavier firepower than other law enforcement officers participating in the same operations.
Officials said Humboldt County Gang Task Force members conduct gang sweeps armed with standard-issue sidearms, and probation officers participating in the same sweeps carry no firearms at all.
In his initial Feb. 14 request for supplemental funds from the asset forfeiture trust fund managed by the California Attorney General’s Office, Gallegos said the purchase of unspecified clothing, safety equipment, portable radios, bullet-proof vests, rifles, a gun safe and other miscellaneous equipment would “directly contribute to further seizures and forfeitures by enhancing the district attorney’s current and future forfeiture operations and investigations.”
On May 15, when he was asked by The Eureka Reporter in what capacity investigators would use the gear, Gallegos did not mention asset forfeiture and said instead, “For investigations.”
He was asked the same question in various forms by Arcata Eye Editor Kevin Hoover during a radio interview Thursday, broadcast live on KHUM-FM, and Gallegos responded that the items would be used in a number of contexts, including in sweeps conducted by the Humboldt County Gang Task Force.
“They wouldn’t be wearing this stuff … on their everyday duties,” Hoover said. “You don’t go out in the world with assault rifles and vests on, the full regalia.”
“They would wear it whenever they are out doing things like gang task force sweeps,” Gallegos said, “all those sorts of things that they have to do. So absolutely they would.”
In the course of the KHUM interview, Gallegos twice mentioned the gang task force, a multi-agency group that conducts an average of two sweeps each year, according to Eureka Police Capt. Murl Harpham.
The task force had not conducted a sweep since September, Harpham said, until Friday, the day after the interview took place.
A news release issued Saturday by the Eureka Police Department reported the participation of the DA’s Office, and Harpham confirmed Monday that one DA investigator was present.
But during the sweep, rifles, semiautomatic or otherwise, were reportedly not in use by anyone.
“EPD officers just used standard sidearms,” said EPD Public Information Officer Suzie Owsley, who went out with one of three teams during the sweep Friday. “I didn’t see anyone with a big gun.”
Brenda Godsey, public information officer for the Humboldt County Sheriff’s Office, said the deputies who participated in the gang sweep also used standard sidearms, in this case .40-caliber Glocks.
“Gang task force sweeps are just knock-and-talks,” Harpham said. “That’s usually how they go. We don’t do the high-profile arrests. If we had someone that was highly dangerous, we wouldn’t use the gang task force to go after them. We’d use SWAT or the (Humboldt County) Drug Task Force.”
HCDTF Commander Jack Nelsen confirmed Monday that the DA’s Office also participates on the more active and heavily armed drug task force, but Nelsen said only one DA investigator was involved.
In the KHUM interview, Gallegos also mentioned probation sweeps, but Humboldt County Probation Division Director Bill Damiano said his officers, who participate in both gang and probation sweeps, do not carry firearms.
“We have an arming policy,” Damiano said Tuesday, “but we currently do not have any officers who have applied and qualified to carry firearms.”
Gallegos has maintained that the purpose of the equipment is to ensure the safety of his investigators.
“Our officers have to be adequately armed,” he told Hoover. “The hope is that they would never have to use them, but that doesn’t mean you don’t arm them.”
All five members of the Humboldt County Board of Supervisors were questioned in an e-mail sent Thursday by The Eureka Reporter about whether they clearly understood from Gallegos’ original budget request that he planned to purchase semiautomatic rifles for each of his investigators and whether, knowing that now, they would support the expenditure of funds for this purpose.
Only 5th District Supervisor Jill Geist responded to the e-mail.
“The item on [the] consent calendar prepared and submitted by the district attorney and approved by the board was to authorize a supplemental transfer of funds for the purchase of safety-related equipment,” Geist wrote.
“The DA hired three investigators who needed supplies and safety gear, including firearms. The DA has sufficient funds to transfer from the Fixed Asset Account, and that action requires board approval. Our staff is responsible for processing requisitions, purchasing and ensuring that items authorized for purchase do not expose the county to unnecessary liability.
“While processing the requisition, a concern was raised due to the expansion of firearm (rifle) to include assault rifles. County staff is exercising due diligence in raising the question. The [County Administrative Officer] is scheduled to meet with the DA on the 30th of May to review the request and receive necessary clarifications.”
The second question Geist did not answer, stating that it presented a potential violation of the Ralph M. Brown Act, possibly because a response to it by all five supervisors could be construed as an informal, undisclosed meeting held by elected officials.
But there was little danger of that.
E-mail receipts indicate Supervisor John Woolley opened the e-mail Thursday morning, and Roger Rodoni opened it Monday afternoon. Jimmy Smith deleted it Monday morning without having opened it, and as of press time Tuesday, Board Chairperson Bonnie Neely has taken no action on the e-mail at all.
None of the four has responded to the questions.
Copyright (C) 2005, The Eureka Reporter. All rights reserved.
Meanwhile:
Gallegos has the Applegate trial -
ER - Children of slain man take the stand in his murder trial
ER - Surviving shooting victim takes stand in second day of murder trial
ER - Several witnesses testify during second day of attempted murder trial
and -
ER - Retrial for man accused in Orick woman's death moved back a month
and -
ER - Omholt returns to court Monday
and -
ER - Sentencing continued in statutory rape trial
5/30/07 More on Applegate:
ER - Sheriff's detective takes stand in murder trial
ER - Children of slain man take the stand in his murder trial
ER - Surviving shooting victim takes stand in second day of murder trial
ER - Several witnesses testify during second day of attempted murder trial
and -
ER - Retrial for man accused in Orick woman's death moved back a month
and -
ER - Omholt returns to court Monday
and -
ER - Sentencing continued in statutory rape trial
5/30/07 More on Applegate:
ER - Sheriff's detective takes stand in murder trial
Tuesday, May 22, 2007
Tell us again...
"...I hope the community now appreciates what a rare treasure we are blessed with in Paul Gallegos..." Jack McCurdy | May 31, 2006
"...from the American Bar Association Standards for Criminal Justice: “prosecutors should take care to avoid any relationships with the police that might cast doubt on the independence and integrity of the office of the prosecutor...” by Eric V. Kirk | Jun 4, 2006
"...from the American Bar Association Standards for Criminal Justice: “prosecutors should take care to avoid any relationships with the police that might cast doubt on the independence and integrity of the office of the prosecutor...” by Eric V. Kirk | Jun 4, 2006
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.
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.
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.
Saturday, May 19, 2007
DA investigators assist Gang Task Force Parole/Probation Sweep
Saturday, May 19, 2007
Parole/Probation Sweep Conducted Friday Night
The Humboldt County Gang Task Force (HCGTF) conducted 15 probation and parole searches throughout the greater Eureka area on Friday night...Agencies that participated in the sweep included the: Eureka Police Department, California Highway Patrol, Humboldt County Sheriffs Office, Parole and Probation Departments, and the Humboldt County District Attorneys Office.
###
Gang task force sweep nets five arrests
But were they properly armed?
Update:
New questions arise after Gallegos' answers about rifles
Parole/Probation Sweep Conducted Friday Night
The Humboldt County Gang Task Force (HCGTF) conducted 15 probation and parole searches throughout the greater Eureka area on Friday night...Agencies that participated in the sweep included the: Eureka Police Department, California Highway Patrol, Humboldt County Sheriffs Office, Parole and Probation Departments, and the Humboldt County District Attorneys Office.
###
Gang task force sweep nets five arrests
But were they properly armed?
Update:
New questions arise after Gallegos' answers about rifles
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)