Who: Sixty-five employees and volunteers from 31 newspaper and broadcast news organizations, trained and coordinated by Californians Aware, a Sacramento-based public interest organization.
What:A systematic survey of the openness of law enforcement agencies to sharing information about themselves with citizens in their local communities, including but not limited to their compliance with state public information law.
When: Visits conducted on December 4, 2006, with disclosures of information often extended through the end of the year.
Where: Two hundred sixteen agencies in 30 of California’s 58 counties, from San Diego to Siskiyou: 184 police and sheriff’s departments and 32 California Highway Patrol area offices. The audit is believed to be the largest of its kind in the nation to date.
Why:To document and compare the relative openness of law enforcement agencies to the public scrutiny that is the right of every Californian, especially when those asking about crimes, arrests and other facts are not representatives of the news media. Also to answer the question: Do those charged with enforcing the law know and heed the laws requiring open government? For the past several decades, corporations in the retail and hospitality sectors, and even some health clinics, have increasingly used “secret” or “mystery” shoppers — trained observers sent by market research firms in the guise of patrons or patients — to report back to the company on such realities as the knowledge, professionalism and customer skills of its public contact staff. See, for example, “Secret Shoppers Help Businesses,” http://chronicle.augusta.com/stories/020700/abc_secret.shtml. Audits of public agencies’ public information practices are simply one variation of this approach — but unlike the business services, they are provided at no cost to government or to the taxpayer.
Background: A common perception among those who routinely seek information from policing agencies — newspaper and broadcast reporters — is that these agencies are the most systematically secretive in government. Numerous legal restrictions limit what information about crimes, investigations, arrests and the officers themselves may or must be released to the public. But beyond these restrictions, attitudes and practices in the police culture may also discourage public inquiry.
Rationales for Secrecy
The law embodies three chief rationales for the secrecy characteristic of police agencies. First, the premature release of investigative findings could make it difficult or impossible to secure the evidence, witnesses or suspects needed for effective apprehensions and prosecutions. Second, the routine identification of all individuals involved could deter victims from reporting sexual assault or spousal abuse, could deter informants from assisting investigations, or could make it more difficult to rehabilitate youthful offenders. Third, disclosing complaints about the conduct of peace officers could be more unfair to them than is the case with other public employees, given the frequency of their confrontations with law-breakers.
Investigative Files: Never Open to Scrutiny
On the other hand, there is widespread feeling among those in the press and other organizations monitoring law enforcement agencies closely that these protective limits on public disclosure are excessive, both as written and as interpreted in practice. For example, almost all agencies treat their legal authority to withhold investigative information as a mandate for secrecy. In fact, they are permitted but not required to withhold investigative information. Accordingly, almost no agencies will release detailed information about any investigations, no matter how old or closed the case may be. They have even recently supported a change in the law to allow them to stop filing crime information in court, where it would be open to the public in the few cases actually going to trial.
Personnel Data: Nobody’s Business
Law enforcement employee unions and related professional associations have been even more energetic to keep the public from learning about how sworn officers perform (including confirmed complaints and discipline for such things as dishonesty and brutality), their fitness for service in terms of background and training, and their compensation in terms of actual earnings. Their view amounts to the proposition that anything about an officer other than what appears on his or her uniform or business card is none of the public’s business — no matter how bad the apple or how big the paycheck. This view by and large reflects the trend of the law. Legislative enactments and their court interpretations for nearly 30 years have extended the secrecy of the peace officer personnel file far beyond the need to protect good officers against the unfair disclosure of baseless complaints.
Our Conviction: Public Records Are There for Everyone
It is fundamental to both the California Public Records Act and to the constitutional and common law principles underlying it that, with almost no exceptions, the government’s public records are open to everyone equally. This point becomes even more important as the number of newspapers and broadcasters closely following government shrinks with changes in the media economy. Even in the past, when the term “newspaper of record” was proudly employed, citizens could not reasonably expect the press to monitor all governmental events and information that were potentially vital to an informed citizenry. But today the prospect is greater than ever that politically significant information in government files will get less media attention, or will be inconsistently or inadequately covered by a corps of reporters stretched ever thinner by media consolidations. In any case it cannot be over-stressed: Ordinary people may not often go to a government window to ask to see the public record for themselves, but when they do, that record should be open to them as readily and completely as to a professional fact-gatherer.
Audit Method: Each auditor visited his or her designated agencies on December 4, asking to speak to the person responsible for public records, then asking him or her for three types of records or information orally (by reading or reciting from memory from a script card), and before leaving, presenting a standard letter requesting access to 10 other records or types of information, which were not expected to be made available the same day. Auditors were told not to introduce themselves as reporters. But since most of them were reporters, to avoid immediate recognition they were cross-assigned to approach agencies they did not normally cover on their beats. They were instructed not to state a false identity, but were told not to reveal their full names or employers unless the agency made such disclosures an absolute condition to getting information. In such event, in order to continue the audit to capture other information, they were instructed to provide whatever was clearly demanded, including filling out a form if insisted on. The first few minutes thus tested how a citizen would be treated, when the agencies were not sure whom they were dealing with. If and when the auditor’s anonymity was “blown,” the rest of the inquiry measured how much information the agency was willing
to release to anyone, journalist or otherwise — and how soon. Auditors were told not to nudge the
agencies to meet legal deadlines for responses — something many reporters would be inclined to do — but to see how aware the agencies were of such time limits without prompting.
Overall Scoring: Sheriff’s and Police Departments
The department starts with a score of 100 points but loses them for outright denial of access, unreasonable delay of access, unlawful demands for information from the requester or sending the requester elsewhere for the information being sought. The following point deductions apply.
10 points for each of the following categories, unless the access was provided by the department itself (not sending the auditor elsewhere), OR unless the record or information was said not to exist:
Statement of Economic Interest (Form 700)
Disclosable Crime Information
Disclosable Arrest Information
Asset Forfeiture Fund Disbursement Records
Statistical Data on Officer Discipline
Officer Salary Schedule
Death in Custody Reports
Records Copy Fee Schedule
10 points for each of the following categories, if it took more than 10 days to decide to produce the information:
Asset Forfeiture Fund Disbursement Records
Statistical Data on Officer Discipline
Officer Salary Schedule
Death in Custody Reports
Records Copy Fee Schedule
5 points for each of the following categories, if it took more than three days to produce the information:
Statement of Economic Interest (Form 700)
Disclosable Crime Information
Disclosable Arrest Information
5 points for each of the following requirements imposed as an absolute condition of access to any of the information:
Disclosure of requester’s identity
Disclosure of requester’s affiliation or employer
Disclosure of requester’s purpose for requesting the information
Requirement to fill out a form disclosing any such information
By law, these requirements may not be imposed as preconditions for access to any of the information requested in this audit. Auditors were instructed by Californians Aware that normal human curiosity was not to be held against the department, and so when an information officer or employee asked about such particulars, the auditor was to determine if a refusal to supply them would disqualify him or her from receiving the requested information.
Overall Scoring: California Highway Patrol Offices
The office starts with a score of 100 points but loses them for denial of access, unreasonable delay of access, unlawful demanding of information from the requester or sending the requester elsewhere for the information being sought. The following point deductions apply.
10 points for disclosable citation or arrest information, unless the access was provided by the department itself (not sending the auditor elsewhere), OR unless the record or information was said not to exist. If the information was produced more than three days after requested, 5 points were deducted.
20 points for each of the following categories, unless the access was provided by the department itself (not sending the auditor elsewhere), OR unless the record or information was said not to exist:
Officer Salary Schedule
Death in Custody Reports
If it took more than 10 days to decide to produce the information, 10 points were deducted for each.
5 points for each of the following requirements imposed as an absolute condition of access to any of the information:
Disclosure of requester’s identity
Disclosure of requester’s affiliation or employer
Disclosure of requester’s purpose for requesting the information
Requirement to fill out a form disclosing any such information
Grading Scale
100 = A+
75 = B-
50 = D
95 = A
70 = C+
45 = D-
90 = A-
65 = C
40 = F+
85 = B+
60 = C-
35 = F
80 = B
55 = D+
0 - 30 = F-
Information Sought: These are the scripted requests the auditors made orally to sheriff’s and police departments and to CHP offices. If no one was present who could deal with the request, the auditors left this statement on a card or sheet along with the letter request — or at least tried to leave it. Some agencies refused to accept and forward the requests:
Sheriff and Police Departments
I’d like to see the most recently filed statement of economic interests for your commander or senior officer at this office. I believe it’s called the Form 700. It shows the official’s income, property holdings and investments.
I’d also like to see the crime information for all burglaries, armed robberies, and sexual assaults, occurring November 1 through November 15, that provide all the details the public has a right to see.
I’d also like to see the arrest information for arrests made in connection to those crimes reported November 1 through November 15.
CHP Offices I’d like to see the citations and arrest information for all drunk driving and reckless driving stops from November 1 through November 15. I’d like to see all details that the public has a right to see.
These are the request letters the auditors left with sheriff’s and police departments and CHP offices, respectively — or tried to:
Subject: Records request, made pursuant to the California Public Records Act (Government Code § 6250 et seq.)
Dear (Sheriff/Police) Representative,
I am writing to ask to inspect each of the following public documents, which if they exist at all, I understand would be in the possession of your agency:
1. Most recent record of asset forfeiture fund disbursements. (See Health & Safety Code § 11495(a).)
2. Most recent summary of officer discipline statistics (See Penal Code Section 832.7(c).)
3. Officer salary schedule—the document fixing the salaries assigned to each rank, grade and step for each peace officer position maintained by the department.
4.Individual Officer Compensation Records Namely, the document or documents disclosing the total dollar compensation actually paid to each peace officer employed by this department for the first 11 months of 2006, identifying the officer only by rank, unless the number of officers occupying that rank is three or fewer, in which case a number may be assigned, e.g. Officer 1, Officer 2, etc.
5.Officer Workers Compensation Claims Namely, a copy of all workers compensation claims filed by peace officers employed by this department for the first 11 months of 2006, identifying the officer only by rank, unless the number of officers occupying that rank is three or fewer, in which case a number may be assigned, e.g. Officer 1, Officer 2, etc.
6. Officer Second Job Records Namely, a copy of the most current record or records disclosing the second jobs, if any, held by each peace officer employed by this department, identifying the officer only by rank, unless the number of officers occupying that rank is three or fewer, in which case a number may be assigned, e.g. Officer 1, Officer 2, etc.
7. The most recent death in custody report sent to the Department of Justice. (See Government Code § 12525.)
8. The complete employment contract of the department’s highest ranking peace officer. (See Government Code Section 6254.8.) In regard to the records listed below, I am requesting true and correct copies of each. I understand I may be charged for the cost of their duplication.
9. Media Relations/Public Information Policy/Policies
I would like to obtain a copy of any document that states the department’s policies and procedures for dealing with requests for information or other activities of journalists or news organizations. If there is a policy or procedural guideline for dealing with requests for information from non-media citizens, please provide a copy of that as well. Please also provide, whether included in the general policies or not, any orders or directives concerning:
the public disclosure of the names of officers whose use of a weapon or other conduct has led to the death of a person, and the timing of the disclosure;
the public disclosure of the names of minors who are accident or crime victims but are not suspected of committing crimes or otherwise subject to juvenile court jurisdiction.
10. Fees charged for copies of crime reports provided to crime victims or their representatives for insurance or other compensation purposes. I would like to obtain a copy of whatever document states the fee to be charged for records or reports including the names and addresses of persons involved in, or witnesses other than confidential informants to, the incident, the description of any property involved, the date, time, and location of the incident, all
diagrams, statements of the parties involved in the incident, the statements of all witnesses, other than confidential informants, to the victims of an incident, or an authorized representative thereof, an insurance carrier against which a claim has been or might be made, and any person suffering bodily injury or property damage or loss, as the result of the incident caused by arson, burglary, fire, explosion, larceny, robbery, carjacking, vandalism, vehicle theft, or a crime as defined by subdivision (c) of Section 13960,” as required in Government Code § 6254, subdivision (f).
Thank you for your cooperation in this request. Please contact me at the number below with a response to any of these requests as soon as you have arrived at it (please don’t wait until several or all are ready to get back to me).
California Public Records Act Request
Dear California Highway Patrol Representative,
Pursuant to my rights under the California Public Records Act (Government Code Section 6250 et seq.) and subdivision (b) of Section 3 of Article I the California Constitution—added by passage of Proposition 59 of 2004—I am writing to ask to inspect a copy each of the following documents, which if they exist at all, I understand to be in the possession of your agency, and which are public records:
1. Officer salary schedule—the document fixing the salaries assigned to each rank, grade and step for each peace officer position maintained by this office.
2. Individual Officer Compensation Records
Namely, the document or documents disclosing the total dollar compensation actually paid to each peace officer employed by this office for the first 11 months of 2006, identifying the officer only by rank, unless the number of officers occupying that rank is three or fewer, in which case a number may be assigned, e.g. Officer 1, Officer 2, etc.
3. Officer Workers Compensation Claims
Namely, a copy of all workers compensation claims filed by peace officers employed by this office for the first 11 months of 2006, identifying the officer only by rank, unless the number of officers occupying that rank is three or fewer, in which case a number may be assigned, e.g. Officer 1, Officer 2, etc.
4. Officer Second Job Records
Namely, a copy of the most current record or records disclosing the second jobs, if any, held by each peace officer employed by this office, identifying the officer only by rank, unless the number of officers occupying that rank is three or fewer, in which case a number may be assigned, e.g. Officer 1, Officer 2, etc.
5. The most recent death in custody report sent to the Department of Justice. (See Government Code § 12525.)
Thank you for your cooperation in this request. Please contact me at the (phone number/e-mail address) below with a response to any of these requests as soon as you have arrived at it (please don’t wait until several or all are ready to get back to me).
Rationale for Requests/Scoring: What follows is the legal basis, reasoning or both underlying each request or other tested item, and the score point deduction for failing to satisfy that request or item.
The Oral Requests
Statement of Economic Interest (Form 700)
The audit tested the ready availability of the statement of economic interest filed by the “commander or senior officer” at each sheriff’s or police department office (CHP offices were not asked for this record).All sheriffs (as elected officials), many police chiefs and certain other ranking officers are required to file and update these statements, as are other local elected and appointed officials. The statements alert the public to the official’s major financial and property holdings so that conflicts of interests are deterred or at least readily detected. (See sample form at http://www.fppc.ca.gov/forms/Form700-04-05.pdf as well as “CHP officer scrutinized,” Sacramento Bee, January 5, http://www.sacbee.com/111/story/103276.html).
While city and county officials must file their Form 700s with the city or county clerk, this audit assumes that they would keep a copy on hand within the department.
Scoring: Where the auditor was sent elsewhere for a copy, 10 points were deducted, as was the case with every other record said by the person in charge of public records requests to be filed elsewhere, and not obtained for the requester. This “one stop service” standard exceeds the minimum requirements of the law, based on the notion that records pertaining to a department’s activities or personnel are its responsibility either to have on hand or to obtain for a requester, rather than sending him or her to another office outside the department, which may be across the street, across town or across the county. This standard may seem a strict one, but it is not impossible to meet — a number of departments did, and it was applied evenhandedly. Two points were deducted if the information was produced by the department but was not available within three days.
Disclosable Crime Information
The audit tested the ready availability of information at sheriff’s and police departments about certain crimes of high public interest within a two-week period from approximately 30 to 15 days before the auditor’s visit. The crimes specified were burglary, armed robbery and sexual assault. Although these categories were not defined with precise Penal Code references (which ordinary citizens would not use in any event), almost no agencies treated the request as too vague to satisfy.
Scoring: Aside from testing whether the request was honored at all, and how soon (two points deducted if the information took longer than three days to produce), the audit measured how much information was initially made available, without having to ask for further details. If an item of information pertinent to a reported crime was never presented despite being classified as disclosable under the California Public Records Act — a description of “property involved” in a burglary, for example — one point was deducted. Accordingly, if the only crime information produced in response to a request was a minimal log or index listing only dates and types of crime, for example, this disclosure would not earn nearly as many points as one indicating, as the request specified, “all details that the public has a right to see.” These are, in the words of Government Code Section 6254, subdivision (f), paragraph (2), “the time, date, and location of occurrence, the time and date of the report, the name and age of the victim” (other than certain sex or abuse crime victims), “the factual circumstances surrounding the crime or incident, and a general description of any injuries, property, or weapons involved.”
Disclosable Arrest Information
The audit tested the ready availability of information at sheriff’s and police departments about arrests made from November 1 to the December 4 audit day in connection with the reported crimes from early November (above).
Scoring: Often there were few or no arrests, and here, as throughout the audit, if the response was that no such records exist, the auditor took the agency at its word and no points were deducted. But as with the crime information, if legally disclosable details were not presented in the first response, one
point was deducted for each one missing. Those details, in the words of Government Code Section 6254, subdivision (f), paragraph (1), are:
the full name and occupation of every individual arrested by the agency, the individual's physical description including date of birth, color of eyes and hair, sex, height and weight, the time and date of arrest, the time and date of booking, the location of the arrest, the factual circumstances surrounding the arrest, the amount of bail set, the time and manner of release or the location where the individual is currently being held, and all charges the individual is being held upon, including any outstanding warrants from other jurisdictions and parole or probation holds.
Disclosable Arrest/Citation Information (CHP)
The audit tested the ready availability of information at California Highway Patrol offices about arrests for driving under the influence or citations or arrests for reckless driving from November 1 through 15.
Scoring: The legal requirements and point deductions were the same used for sheriff’s and police arrests.
The Written Requests
Asset Forfeiture Fund Disbursement Records
The audit tested the ready availability of periodic reports showing how much money a sheriff’s or police department received as a byproduct of seizing cash and property in connection with drug law enforcement operations. The information is made public by Health and Safety Code Section 11495, subdivision (a), which states:
The funds received by the law enforcement agencies under Section 11489 shall be deposited into an account maintained by the Controller, county auditor, or city treasurer. These funds shall be distributed to the law enforcement agencies at their request. The Controller, auditor, or treasurer shall maintain a record of these disbursements which records shall be open to public inspection, subject to the privileges contained in Sections 1040, 1041, and 1042 of the Evidence Code.
Under Health and Safety Code Section 11489 a portion of any court-declared forfeited cash or property proceeds not reverting to the “bona fide or innocent purchaser, conditional sales vendor, or mortgagee of the property” goes to one or more local law enforcement agencies that participated in the seizure. And of this share, under Section 11489, 15 percent is to be set aside “for the sole purpose of funding programs designed to combat drug abuse and divert gang activity, and shall wherever possible involve educators, parents, community-based organizations and local businesses, and uniformed law enforcement officers. Those programs that have been evaluated as successful shall be given priority.”
As stated by former Attorney General Bill Lockyer,
The goal of asset forfeiture is to remove the profits from those who benefit from illegal drug trade. Illegal drug trafficking diverts money from lawful commerce to illegal activity. While drug seizures and arrests present a temporary setback for drug traffickers, asset forfeiture is effective in permanently taking away proceeds from these traffickers and diminishes their ability to continue the illegal enterprise. Asset forfeiture proceeds are used to fund education and drug abuse prevention programs. The law also permits law enforcement agencies to use the proceeds of forfeiture to purchase safe, more effective equipment that they otherwise could not afford. Thus, law enforcement is able to convert criminal profits into supplemental funding to inhibit the illegal drug trade.
Scoring: No deduction was made if, reasonably promptly, the record was made available at the department or was said not to exist. Conceivably a particular department, for whatever reason, may not have been eligible for a share of forfeiture proceeds. But under the “one stop service” standard, 10 points were deducted if the requester was sent elsewhere for the record. If a response that the record was available at the department came more than 10 days after the request, five points were deducted for the delay.
Statistical Data on Officer Discipline
The audit tested the ready availability of statistical reports showing the frequency, type and results of citizens’ complaints about the behavior of police or sheriff’s officers (this request was not made of CHP offices). Penal Code Section 832.7 (c) states:
Notwithstanding subdivision (a), a department or agency that employs peace or custodial officers may disseminate data regarding the number, type, or disposition of complaints (sustained, not sustained, exonerated, or unfounded) made against its officers if that information is in a form which does not identify the individuals involved.
The “subdivision (a)” referred to is the rule that makes the contents of peace officer personnel files confidential and, consequently, exempt from disclosure under the California Public Records Act. Since the reporting governed by subdivision (c) is discretionary, the object of the request was to determine which departments, if any, are willing to share this bare-bones information with the public.
Scoring: No deduction was made if, reasonably promptly, the record was made available at the department or was said not to exist, since such reports are not required to be created in the first place. But under the “one stop service” standard, 10 points were deducted if the requester was sent elsewhere for the record. If a response that the record was available at the department came more than 10 days after the request, five points were deducted for the delay.
Officer Salary Schedule
The audit tested the ready availability of information showing the base pay or pay range for each sworn officer rank in a sheriff’s or police department or CHP office. Since no exemption from the California Public Records Act exists for such information, it is subject to disclosure. Scoring: Full credit was given if, reasonably promptly, the record was made available at the department or was said not to exist (although although only a handful made the latter response). But under the “one stop service” standard, no credit was given if the requester was sent elsewhere for the record, and if a response that the record was available at the department came more than 10 days after the request, five points were deducted for the delay.
Officer Compensation Records, Worker’s Compensation Claims
and Second Job Records
The audit tested the ready availability of information showing — without naming or otherwise identifying the officer — the actual pay earned, any worker’s compensation claims filed, and any outside jobs held by each officer in a sheriff’s or police department or CHP office. This information shows the public, among other things, any pronounced pattern of differences between what the salary schedule sets as base pay and what particular (albeit anonymous) officers were actually paid. Such discrepancies could reflect heavy accruals of overtime or other anomalies suggesting questions for management. The workers’ comp DWC 1 forms — (see http://www.dir.ca.gov/dwc/DWCForm1.pdf) could disclose any unexpectedly dangerous conditions in the officers’ work environment by showing actual on-the-job injuries reported to the employer, and when and where they occurred. The second job records could have implications for two issues: whether many or most officers (and if so at what ranks or pay grades)
are having to take second jobs to make ends meet, and what kinds of outside employment the department considers acceptable enough to approve, with what conditions.
There is case law concluding that the actual compensation of identifiable officers is as confidential as other information derived from their personnel files — on the “privacy” grounds uniquely applicable to peace officers. City of Los Angeles v. Superior Court, 111 Cal.App.4th 883 (2003); Teamsters Local 856 v. Priceless, LLC, 112 Cal.App.4th 1500 (2003). But these requests avoided that contention by stipulating that specifically identifying information — name and even rank if the number of officers in a given rank was three or fewer — could be withheld and substituted by numbers if necessary. If departments were going to balk at releasing even these anonymous figures, that is one outcome the audit was designed to expose.
Scoring: No court has addressed the question of whether — as many departments’ legal counsel argue — information derived from individual officers’ personnel files is confidential and may be withheld on privacy grounds even though the officer is not identifiable. Californians Aware strongly suspects this position is wrong, but given the lack of judicial authority on the precise question, did not deduct points for those departments asserting confidentiality for this information. But if a response that the record was confidential came more than 10 days after the request, five points were deducted for the delay.
Death in Custody Reports
The audit tested the ready availability of information required to be reported to the Attorney General concerning the death of a person while in custody of a sheriff’s or police department or a CHP station. Government Code Section 12525 states,
In any case in which a person dies while in the custody of any law enforcement agency . . . in this state, the law enforcement agency . . . shall report in writing to the Attorney General, within 10 days after the death, all facts in the possession of the law enforcement agency or agency in charge of the correctional facility concerning the death. These writings are public records within the meaning of subdivision (d) of Section 6252 of the California Public Records Act . . ., are open to public inspection pursuant to Sections 6253, 6256, 6257, and 6258. Nothing in this section shall permit the disclosure of confidential medical information that may have been submitted to the Attorney General's office in conjunction with the report . . .
Scoring: No deduction was made if, reasonably promptly, the record was made available at the department or was said not to exist (because no one has died in custody since the reporting law was passed about 20 years ago). Conceivably a particular department, for whatever reason, may not have been eligible for a share of forfeiture proceeds. But under the “one stop service” standard, 10 points were deducted if the requester was sent elsewhere for the record. If a response that the record was available at the department came more than 10 days after the request, five points were deducted for the delay.
Employment Contract of Police Chief, Sheriff, CHP Station Commander
The audit tested the ready availability of information showing the complete package of salary and benefits available to the department’s commanding officer. The California Public Records Act states in Government Code Section 6254.8:
Every employment contract between a state or local agency and any public official or public employee is a public record which is not subject to the provisions of Sections 6254 and 6255.
As with general officer salary schedules, information on the top officer’s compensation is of public interest if for no other reason than to evaluate how it compares with those in comparable positions elsewhere. Some responses argued that their commanding officer (a sheriff, for example) was strictly speaking not employed by contract, but others did not insist on this technicality and provided apparently full compensation details.
Scoring: No deduction was made if, reasonably promptly, the record was made available at the department. But under the “one stop service” standard, 10 points were deducted if the requester was sent elsewhere for the record. If a response that the record was available at the department came more than 10 days after the request, five points were deducted for the delay.
Media Relations Policy, Records Copy Fee Schedule
The auditors asked for copies of these records to allow Californians Aware to study (and later report on) departments’ and CHP offices’ policies on what information will be made available to the news media, to the general public otherwise, or both. Also of interest to CalAware are the fees charged for copies of either miscellaneous records in general or the “reports” prepared for those involved in accidents or suffering loss as crime victims — reports needed for submittal to insurance carriers. These fees will also be the subject of a future CalAware report.
Scoring: No deduction was made if, reasonably promptly, the record was made available at the department. But under the “one stop service” standard, 10 points were deducted if the requester was sent elsewhere for the record. If a response that the record was available at the department came more than 10 days after the request, five points were deducted for the delay.
