DA's slow response on information request criticized by Dikeman volunteer
by Glenn Franco Simmons, 5/9/2006
A Worth Dikeman campaign volunteer said a dispute she had over the release of District Attorney’s Office records has been resolved, but not before she felt the DA’s Office and county counsel used delay tactics in the release of that public information.
District Attorney Paul Gallegos told The Eureka Reporter that all information requested by Welsh was submitted by his office to the County Counsel’s Office, which houses the county’s legal team. Gallegos said that office was the decision-maker as to whether the requested information could be released to the public.
“We (the DA’s Office) had no concern about releasing (the information),” Gallegos said. “When we got the request, we talked to county counsel, like we would do for anybody. County counsel gave us some advice.”
When asked if this was the usual process for responding to such a request, Gallegos said, “Absolutely.”
Welsh doesn’t buy Gallegos’ answer. In fact, she said it was The Eureka Reporter’s e-mails to county officials requesting information about her request that prompted the release of all the information.
Gallegos said that Welsh is incorrect.
Welsh has requested information relating to government grants the DA’s Office has received. Welsh said she is attempting to determine what is grant-funded in the department and what isn’t, so she can determine whether Gallegos is properly disbursing the grants’ resources.
Gallegos said he is confident that he has done a good job with disbursing the grants and allocating resources mandated by the grants.
“With grants, if there are issues associated with them, I need to make sure that I’ve done my job,” he said.
At the same time, he realizes that it’s election time and that any decision he has made will be analyzed in what is becoming a heated political campaign, such as the one he currently is involved in.
According to information presented by Welsh to The Eureka Reporter, she requested records of grants in the categories of domestic violence “and the breakdown of how those funds were allocated and spent including, but not limited to:
+ “The total amount received for each grant for each of the named years.
+ “The conditions upon which each grant was approved to be spent.
+ “The names of each of the District Attorney’s Office employees who were paid using money from these grants; in other words, which positions were funded, in part or in full, by these grants.
+ “The amount actually spent on each employee.
+ “The total breakdown of how each grant was actually spent and the name of the source, person or entity who received the funds.”
Welsh also requested all child abuse grant records received by the DA’s Office for the period of 2002-2005. Again, she also requested “the breakdown of how those funds were spent, including but not limited to:
+ “The total amount received for each individual grant for each of the named years.
+ “The conditions upon which each grant was approved to be spent.
+ “The names of each of the District Attorney’s Office employees who were paid using money from these grants; in other words, which positions were funded, in part or in full, by these grants.
+ “The amount actually spent by each employee.”
Welsh, who made her request a formal one by invoking a California Public Records Act (www.thefirstamendment.org/publicrecordsact.pdf) request of the DA’s Office, said the county initially balked at complying fully with her request. The reason? The DA’s Office said pending litigation was the reason for the non-release of some of the documents requested by Rose, so those records were going to initially be withheld from Welsh.
DA’s Office employee Linda Modell wrote to Welsh, saying the 1,454 pages requested by Welsh would cost $363.50.“The records do not contain documents from the Spousal Abuse Prosecution Program or the Statutory Rape Vertical Prosecution Program,” Modell said. “These documents are the subject of pending litigation and per advice of County Counsel and Government Code Section 6254(b), we are not able to disclose at this time.”
Welsh also asked for information about how the grants have been spent on personnel — benefits and salary.
She also requested information about former Assistant District Attorney Tim Stoen.
Per those requests, the county sent her the following from Personnel Director Rick Haeg in an e-mail:
“I have asked our county payroll department to review your request for records. They have advised me that no totals for all benefits are readily available. The information would have to be researched and compiled per benefit item. Because the Public Records Act … does not require that a responding agency create a record to meet the specifications of the request when no such record presently exists, we are unable to comply with your request.”
Welsh fired back an e-mail that stated she was also seeking the amount the county paid to employ the controversial Stoen: “… Unless you (Haeg) are telling me that all benefits associated with his position were included in his salary, the cost of benefits is in addition to his salary. Benefits will normally follow some formula — and I find it incomprehensible that the county does not have this information readily available for all employees.
“In order to speak accurately about the cost of his employment, I need accurate and complete information. That is the reason I filed this Public Records Act request in the first place.”
Welsh was prepared to sue the DA’s Office for not complying with the state’s Public Records Act, which allows for certain government information to be turned over to the public and/or media when such information is requested.
The county’s response to The Eureka Reporter came in the form of an e-mail from Deputy County Counsel Richard Hendry, who stated that Welsh ”requested information on all grants received by the District Attorney’s Office for the years 2002 through 2005. That information was made available to her, except for a grant involving the Spousal Abuse Prosecution Program, which was initially thought to be exempt under the ‘pending litigation’ exception.
“Upon further review by this office,” Hendry said, “it was determined that the material could indeed be released. Ms. Welsh has been notified that all the requested information is being disclosed. …”
Welsh picked up the material on Tuesday.
Copyright (C) 2005, The Eureka Reporter. All rights reserved.
No comments:
Post a Comment