LISA L. LORTON From law enforcement community: Departments were setup for failure IN NEWSPAPERS across the state recently, a survey was released on how local police and sheriff's departments responded to a request for information. The group CalAware designed the survey with newspaper and television reporters from throughout the state acting as the "public" while making these requests. The goal of this survey was not to create a fair and impartial survey of law enforcement agencies responses to Public Records Act requests, but instead to pave the way for CalAware and their supporters to introduce legislation in Sacramento to move California toward a Sunshine law, like many states throughout the South have already done. The grading system used was subjective, allowing for the person who did the survey to interject their personal biases in the process. In a number of cases, agencies responded that the information was available, but yet survey takers deducted anywhere from 10 to 20 points. This was apparently based on the perceived attitude of the employee the survey taker was dealing with, and not based on whether the information was available and was provided to the survey taker. The survey also deducted points from police agencies for not acting as "one stop shops" for information seekers. First, there is no requirement in the law for this, but CalAware feels it should be, so agencies were given deductions for this. Secondly, law enforcement records bureau keep police reports, not conflict of interest statements and salary schedules for city employees. Much of this information is available on most cities or counties' Web pages, but when the survey takers were directed to these locations, agencies were once again downgraded. Last year, CLEARS made an attempt to work with CalAware, after they had done this same audit on state agencies, with similar results. CalAware introduced legislation on the subject, without trying to work with law enforcement at all. CLEARS offered to work with them on creating a bill that could meet everyone's needs but they were not interested. They instead chose to pursue their own agenda, which predictably failed in the Legislature, mainly due to the combined opposition of law enforcement groups from across the state. In conclusion, remember that the Public Records Act does state that the purpose someone wants the information is not required and the request can be made both verbally or in writing. Agencies can ask the requester to fill out a form, but again remember that the law does not require it. If you or your agency require any assistance with the provisions of the Public Records Act, please look at the CLEARS Web Page, there are a number of resources there, including a tri-fold information pamphlet that deals with the release of information under the Public Records Act. Lorton is president California Law Enforcement Association of Records Supervisors, CLEARS. This guest commentary first appeared in the Contra Costa Times on January 28, 2007.   Calaware Response LISA L. LORTON From law enforcement community: Departments were setup for failure IN NEWSPAPERS across the state recently, a survey was released on how local police and sheriff's departments responded to a request for information. The group CalAware designed the survey with newspaper and television reporters from throughout the state acting as the "public" while making these requests. The goal of this survey was not to create a fair and impartial survey of law enforcement agencies responses to Public Records Act requests, but instead to pave the way for CalAware and their supporters to introduce legislation in Sacramento to move California toward a Sunshine law, like many states throughout the South have already done. Wrong. The goal was to see what departmental practices were really like and to try to rate them on a comparability scale. As CalAware announced at the time the audit was released, we were not sure whether legislation would be the most useful answer to most of the problems, although there are a few misunderstandings of the law that probably could be cleared up by legislation. We don't know what Ms. Lorton means about a "Sunshine Law" in the South. The grading system used was subjective, allowing for the person who did the survey to interject their personal biases in the process. Wrong. Those who visited departments and recorded the results had no role in the grading system, which Californians Aware devised and applied afterward. The judgment of how many points should be deducted for demanding to know the requester's name, purpose, affiliation, etc., or for utterly ignoring a written request, might be considered subjective, but the points were applied based on the objective (checkoff) report of what happened, not the requester's narrative of the experience. In a number of cases, agencies responded that the information was available, but yet survey takers deducted anywhere from 10 to 20 points. This was apparently based on the perceived attitude of the employee the survey taker was dealing with, and not based on whether the information was available and was provided to the survey taker. Wrong. Information said to be "available" lost points if the requester was sent somewhere else to get it, or if it was available only when the requester disclosed his or her identity, affiliation or purpose, or if the department took more than 10 days even to notify the requester whether the written request for information would be satisfied at all. The survey also deducted points from police agencies for not acting as "one stop shops" for information seekers. First, there is no requirement in the law for this, but CalAware feels it should be, so agencies were given deductions for this. That's certainly true, and we made it clear from the outset that our standard went beyond the law and reflected a goal of optimum customer service. Secondly, law enforcement records bureau keep police reports, not conflict of interest statements and salary schedules for city employees. Much of this information is available on most cities or counties' Web pages, but when the survey takers were directed to these locations, agencies were once again downgraded. Last year, CLEARS made an attempt to work with CalAware, after they had done this same audit on state agencies, with similar results. CalAware introduced legislation on the subject, without trying to work with law enforcement at all. "An attempt to work with CalAware"? Baloney. What CLEARS did was to interject itself into resistance to a bill that had absolutely nothing to do with law enforcement records. CLEARS offered to work with them on creating a bill that could meet everyone's needs but they were not interested. They instead chose to pursue their own agenda, which predictably failed in the Legislature, mainly due to the combined opposition of law enforcement groups from across the state. Utter fiction. AB 2927 did not fail in the Legislature, which on the contrary passed it by unanimous votes. The opposition of CLEARS, the sheriff's association and an individual sheriff were simply ignored. The Governor vetoed the bill out of concern for a provision giving the Attorney General a power of review that the Governor felt represented a conflict of interest. In conclusion, remember that the Public Records Act does state that the purpose someone wants the information is not required and the request can be made both verbally or in writing. Agencies can ask the requester to fill out a form, but again remember that the law does not require it. If you or your agency require any assistance with the provisions of the Public Records Act, please look at the CLEARS Web Page, there are a number of resources there, including a tri-fold information pamphlet that deals with the release of information under the Public Records Act. Better suggestion: Since departments would hardly have responded so dismally to the CalAware audit if CLEARS had been keeping its members up to date on, and correctly trained in, the law, we recommend instead that records supervisors be guided by the California Department of Justice Guidelines for Access to Public Records (September 2006), which can be downloaded at https://www.calaware.org/programs/AG(guidelines).pdf. Note that these guidelines were developed to inform, and are addressed to, public records requesters. We agree that the departments may have been set up to fail a measurement of their response to citizen requesters under the Public Records Act. But CalAware didn't set them up. If any statewide organization did, it was CLEARS. Lorton is president California Law Enforcement Association of Records Supervisors, CLEARS.