County keeps safety on DA rifle request
John Driscoll and Chris Durant
05/31/2007 The Times-Standard
Humboldt County's chief administrative officer won't approve the purchase of assault rifles requested by the district attorney's office at least until a dusty use of force policy and training protocols are updated.
Loretta Nickolaus said she was satisfied that those policies are being updated after meeting Wednesday with District Attorney Paul Gallegos, his Chief Investigator Mike Hislop, Assistant District Attorney Wes Keat, Assistant County Counsel Wendy Chaitin and Risk Manager Kim Kerr.
Nickolaus said, for now, she won't allow the district attorney's office to buy the eight AR-15 rifles Gallegos is seeking, citing concerns that the county could be held liable if there was an incident involving the guns before the protocols were modernized.
”It's on hold,” Nickolaus said. “Let's see what they come up with.”
Hislop said the meeting was positive and he provided a training syllabus and a draft of the district attorney's office updated use of force policy.
”I answered all their questions,” Hislop said.
After the meeting 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.
The policy Hislop provided is more limited in scope than those of the county Sheriff's Department and the Eureka Police Department, which are nearly identical to each other. It appears to be more specifically geared toward using firearms for defensive purposes, and does not address more police-related activities of less-than-deadly force or pain compliance techniques that might be used during arrests.
The district attorney's training protocol previously called for district attorney investigators to qualify with their firearms once a year, Hislop said, while he plans to increase that training to four times per year -- a provision now contained in the use of force policy.
District attorney investigators have not discharged a firearm in the course of duty for at least four years, Nickolaus said, if not longer.
She said she's convinced that the DA investigators -- several of which recently came from police or sheriff's departments -- want the assault rifles for defensive purposes.
”They feel like they're not safe unless they have those rifles,” she said.
But while the policy is being revised, Nickolaus said she wouldn't approve their purchase, and voiced concern that the county, or even her as the purchasing agent, could be held liable if they were approved before the use of force policy was updated.
Showing posts with label Public Records. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Public Records. Show all posts
5.31.2007
5.27.2007
TS - Enough secrecy in the DA's office
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.
Related stories:
DA under fire over assault rifles
Humboldt County Board of Supervisors AGENDA March 6, 2007 Consent Calendar Item c-5
New questions arise after Gallegos' answers about rifles
Concerns raised over DA investigator weapons
Other Blogs discuss:
DA's office requests hand grenades...
Eric - Gallegos wants guns
Fred - DA's Office Follows Vroman's Lead
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.
Related stories:
DA under fire over assault rifles
Humboldt County Board of Supervisors AGENDA March 6, 2007 Consent Calendar Item c-5
New questions arise after Gallegos' answers about rifles
Concerns raised over DA investigator weapons
Other Blogs discuss:
DA's office requests hand grenades...
Eric - Gallegos wants guns
Fred - DA's Office Follows Vroman's Lead
5.24.2007
May 5, 2006 Public Records Act Request granted
Date: Fri, 5 May 2006 11:03:38 -0700
To: "Gallegos, Paul"
"Modell, Linda"
From: [Rose Welsh]
Subject: Fwd: RE: PUBLIC RECORD ACT REQUEST re GRANTS
Cc: "County Administrator Office"
"Falor, Tammy"
"Hendry, Richard" ,
"Keat, Wesley"
Glenn Franco Simmons
May 5, 2006
To: Paul Gallegos
Humboldt County District Attorney's Office
825 Fifth St.
Eureka, CA 95501
Mr. Gallegos:
According to the Government Code cited below, you cannot refuse to give me the information on all of the grants received by your office. That information has nothing to do with pending litigation, as grant information if prepared for the grantors, not for pending litigation. The pending litigation provision under section 6254(b) has no applicability to the domestic violence and statutory rape information.
You are already in violation of the public records act requirements, as this information should have been delivered to me by April 28th 2006.
Failure to deliver the complete information requested by Monday, May 8th, 2006 at 10:00 am will result in litigation.
Under the "pending litigation" exemption from the disclosure of public records, a document is protected from disclosure only if it was specifically prepared for use in litigation. City of Hemet v Superior Court (1995, 4th Dist) 37 Cal App 4th 1411, 44 Cal Rptr 2d 532.
"Pending litigation," which focuses on the purpose of the document, serves to protect documents created by a public entity for its own use in anticipation of litigation. Fairley v Superior Court (1998, 2nd Dist) 66 Cal App 4th 1414, 78 Cal Rptr 2d 648.
A document is protected from disclosure under the pending litigation exemption only if the document was specifically prepared for use in litigation County of Los Angeles v Superior Court (2000, 2nd Dist) 82 Cal App 4th 819, 98 Cal Rptr 2d 564.
Rosemarie Welsh
cc:
"County Administrator Office"
"Falor, Tammy"
"Hendry, Richard"
"Keat, Wesley"
Glenn Franco Simmons
***
Subject: RE: PUBLIC RECORD ACT REQUEST re GRANTS
Date: Thu, 4 May 2006 16:51:39 -0700
From: "Modell, Linda"
To: "Rose Welsh"
Cc: "County Administrator Office"
"Falor, Tammy"
"Hendry, Richard"
"Gallegos, Paul"
"Keat, Wesley"
Ms. Welsh - The documents you have requested are available for you to pick up at the District Attorney's Office. There is a total of 1,454 pages @.25/pg totalling $363.50. Please make your check payable to the Humboldt County District Attorney - General Fund.
The records do not contain documents from the Spousal Abuse Prosection Program or the Statutory Rape Vertical Prosecution Program. 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. We will be happy to provide them once the lawsuit has resolved. Please let us know if you wish them to be provided at that time.
Two programs that the District Attorney is not the grantee of, and therefore we do not have complete information on, can be requested from the agencies that administer them. They are the Marijuana Suppression Program administered by the Humboldt County Sheriff's Office and the NC3TF administered by the Marin County District Attorney's Office.
-----Original Message-----
From: peoplearefunny [mailto:peoplearefunny@cox.net]
Sent: Monday, April 03, 2006 9:35 AM
To: District Attorney
Cc: County Administrator Office; Falor, Tammy
Subject: PUBLIC RECORD ACT REQUEST re GRANTS
April 3, 2006
To: Paul Gallegos
Humboldt County District Attorney's Office
825 Fifth St.
Eureka, CA 95501
PUBLIC RECORD ACT REQUEST - TIME SENSITIVE
Please provide me with the following records in your possession:
REGARDING GRANTS RECEIVED BY THE D.A.'s OFFICE:
Please provide the following records in your possession:
Copies of all records regarding ALL GRANTS received by the District Attorney's Office for the years 2002, 2003, 2004, and 2005, including but not limited to:
1.) The records regarding all grants in the areas of DOMESTIC VIOLENCE and the breakdown of how those funds were ALLOCATED AND SPENT including but not limited to:
a.) the TOTAL AMOUNT RECEIVED for each grant for each of the named years
b.) the CONDITIONS upon which each grant was approved to be spent
c.) the NAMES of each of the district attorney's office employees that were paid using money from these grants, in other words, which positions were funded, in part or in full by these grants
d.) the amount ACTUALLY SPENT on each employee
e.) the TOTAL BREAKDOWN of how each grant was actually spent and the name of the source, person or entity that received the funds
2.) The records regarding ALL GRANTS received by the District Attorney's Office in the areas of CHILD ABUSE for the years 2002, 2003, 2004, and 2005, and the BREAKDOWN of how those funds were spent, including but not limited to:
a.) the TOTAL AMOUNT RECEIVED for each individual grant for each of the named years,
b.) the CONDITIONS upon which each grant was approved to be spent
c.) the NAMES of each of the district attorney's office employees that were paid using money from these grants, in other words, which positions were funded, in part or in full by these grants
d.) the amount ACTUALLY SPENT on each employee
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.
Rosemarie Welsh
CC:
Loretta Nickolaus, CAO
Tamara Falor, County Counsel
To: "Gallegos, Paul"
"Modell, Linda"
From: [Rose Welsh]
Subject: Fwd: RE: PUBLIC RECORD ACT REQUEST re GRANTS
Cc: "County Administrator Office"
"Falor, Tammy"
"Hendry, Richard" ,
"Keat, Wesley"
Glenn Franco Simmons
May 5, 2006
To: Paul Gallegos
Humboldt County District Attorney's Office
825 Fifth St.
Eureka, CA 95501
Mr. Gallegos:
According to the Government Code cited below, you cannot refuse to give me the information on all of the grants received by your office. That information has nothing to do with pending litigation, as grant information if prepared for the grantors, not for pending litigation. The pending litigation provision under section 6254(b) has no applicability to the domestic violence and statutory rape information.
You are already in violation of the public records act requirements, as this information should have been delivered to me by April 28th 2006.
Failure to deliver the complete information requested by Monday, May 8th, 2006 at 10:00 am will result in litigation.
Under the "pending litigation" exemption from the disclosure of public records, a document is protected from disclosure only if it was specifically prepared for use in litigation. City of Hemet v Superior Court (1995, 4th Dist) 37 Cal App 4th 1411, 44 Cal Rptr 2d 532.
"Pending litigation," which focuses on the purpose of the document, serves to protect documents created by a public entity for its own use in anticipation of litigation. Fairley v Superior Court (1998, 2nd Dist) 66 Cal App 4th 1414, 78 Cal Rptr 2d 648.
A document is protected from disclosure under the pending litigation exemption only if the document was specifically prepared for use in litigation County of Los Angeles v Superior Court (2000, 2nd Dist) 82 Cal App 4th 819, 98 Cal Rptr 2d 564.
Rosemarie Welsh
cc:
"County Administrator Office"
"Falor, Tammy"
"Hendry, Richard"
"Keat, Wesley"
Glenn Franco Simmons
***
Subject: RE: PUBLIC RECORD ACT REQUEST re GRANTS
Date: Thu, 4 May 2006 16:51:39 -0700
From: "Modell, Linda"
To: "Rose Welsh"
Cc: "County Administrator Office"
"Falor, Tammy"
"Hendry, Richard"
"Gallegos, Paul"
"Keat, Wesley"
Ms. Welsh - The documents you have requested are available for you to pick up at the District Attorney's Office. There is a total of 1,454 pages @.25/pg totalling $363.50. Please make your check payable to the Humboldt County District Attorney - General Fund.
The records do not contain documents from the Spousal Abuse Prosection Program or the Statutory Rape Vertical Prosecution Program. 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. We will be happy to provide them once the lawsuit has resolved. Please let us know if you wish them to be provided at that time.
Two programs that the District Attorney is not the grantee of, and therefore we do not have complete information on, can be requested from the agencies that administer them. They are the Marijuana Suppression Program administered by the Humboldt County Sheriff's Office and the NC3TF administered by the Marin County District Attorney's Office.
-----Original Message-----
From: peoplearefunny [mailto:peoplearefunny@cox.net]
Sent: Monday, April 03, 2006 9:35 AM
To: District Attorney
Cc: County Administrator Office; Falor, Tammy
Subject: PUBLIC RECORD ACT REQUEST re GRANTS
April 3, 2006
To: Paul Gallegos
Humboldt County District Attorney's Office
825 Fifth St.
Eureka, CA 95501
PUBLIC RECORD ACT REQUEST - TIME SENSITIVE
Please provide me with the following records in your possession:
REGARDING GRANTS RECEIVED BY THE D.A.'s OFFICE:
Please provide the following records in your possession:
Copies of all records regarding ALL GRANTS received by the District Attorney's Office for the years 2002, 2003, 2004, and 2005, including but not limited to:
1.) The records regarding all grants in the areas of DOMESTIC VIOLENCE and the breakdown of how those funds were ALLOCATED AND SPENT including but not limited to:
a.) the TOTAL AMOUNT RECEIVED for each grant for each of the named years
b.) the CONDITIONS upon which each grant was approved to be spent
c.) the NAMES of each of the district attorney's office employees that were paid using money from these grants, in other words, which positions were funded, in part or in full by these grants
d.) the amount ACTUALLY SPENT on each employee
e.) the TOTAL BREAKDOWN of how each grant was actually spent and the name of the source, person or entity that received the funds
2.) The records regarding ALL GRANTS received by the District Attorney's Office in the areas of CHILD ABUSE for the years 2002, 2003, 2004, and 2005, and the BREAKDOWN of how those funds were spent, including but not limited to:
a.) the TOTAL AMOUNT RECEIVED for each individual grant for each of the named years,
b.) the CONDITIONS upon which each grant was approved to be spent
c.) the NAMES of each of the district attorney's office employees that were paid using money from these grants, in other words, which positions were funded, in part or in full by these grants
d.) the amount ACTUALLY SPENT on each employee
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.
Rosemarie Welsh
CC:
Loretta Nickolaus, CAO
Tamara Falor, County Counsel
May 4, 2006 Public Records Act Response/Refusal
From: "Modell, Linda"
To: Rose Welsh
Cc: "County Administrator Office"
"Falor, Tammy"
"Hendry, Richard"
"Gallegos, Paul"
"Keat, Wesley"
Ms. Welsh - The documents you have requested are available for you to pick up at the District Attorney's Office. There is a total of 1,454 pages @.25/pg totalling $363.50. Please make your check payable to the Humboldt County District Attorney - General Fund.
The records do not contain documents from the Spousal Abuse Prosection Program or the Statutory Rape Vertical Prosecution Program. 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. We will be happy to provide them once the lawsuit has resolved. Please let us know if you wish them to be provided at that time.
Two programs that the District Attorney is not the grantee of, and therefore we do not have complete information on, can be requested from the agencies that administer them. They are the Marijuana Suppression Program administered by the Humboldt County Sheriff's Office and the NC3TF administered by the Marin County District Attorney's Office.
-----Original Message-----
From: Rose Welsh
Sent: Monday, April 03, 2006 9:35 AM
To: District Attorney
Cc: County Administrator Office; Falor, Tammy
Subject: PUBLIC RECORD ACT REQUEST re GRANTS
April 3, 2006
To: Paul Gallegos
Humboldt County District Attorney's Office
825 Fifth St.
Eureka, CA 95501
PUBLIC RECORD ACT REQUEST - TIME SENSITIVE
Please provide me with the following records in your possession:
REGARDING GRANTS RECEIVED BY THE D.A.'s OFFICE:
Please provide the following records in your possession:
Copies of all records regarding ALL GRANTS received by the District Attorney's Office for the years 2002, 2003, 2004, and 2005, including but not limited to:
1.) The records regarding all grants in the areas of DOMESTIC VIOLENCE and the breakdown of how those funds were ALLOCATED AND SPENT including but not limited to:
a.) the TOTAL AMOUNT RECEIVED for each grant for each of the named years
b.) the CONDITIONS upon which each grant was approved to be spent
c.) the NAMES of each of the district attorney's office employees that were paid using money from these grants, in other words, which positions were funded, in part or in full by these grants
d.) the amount ACTUALLY SPENT on each employee
e.) the TOTAL BREAKDOWN of how each grant was actually spent and the name of the source, person or entity that received the funds
2.) The records regarding ALL GRANTS received by the District Attorney's Office in the areas of CHILD ABUSE for the years 2002, 2003, 2004, and 2005, and the BREAKDOWN of how those funds were spent, including but not limited to:
a.) the TOTAL AMOUNT RECEIVED for each individual grant for each of the named years,
b.) the CONDITIONS upon which each grant was approved to be spent
c.) the NAMES of each of the district attorney's office employees that were paid using money from these grants, in other words, which positions were funded, in part or in full by these grants
d.) the amount ACTUALLY SPENT on each employee
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.
Rosemarie Welsh
CC:
Loretta Nickolaus, CAO
Tamara Falor, County Counsel
To: Rose Welsh
Cc: "County Administrator Office"
"Falor, Tammy"
"Hendry, Richard"
"Gallegos, Paul"
"Keat, Wesley"
Ms. Welsh - The documents you have requested are available for you to pick up at the District Attorney's Office. There is a total of 1,454 pages @.25/pg totalling $363.50. Please make your check payable to the Humboldt County District Attorney - General Fund.
The records do not contain documents from the Spousal Abuse Prosection Program or the Statutory Rape Vertical Prosecution Program. 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. We will be happy to provide them once the lawsuit has resolved. Please let us know if you wish them to be provided at that time.
Two programs that the District Attorney is not the grantee of, and therefore we do not have complete information on, can be requested from the agencies that administer them. They are the Marijuana Suppression Program administered by the Humboldt County Sheriff's Office and the NC3TF administered by the Marin County District Attorney's Office.
-----Original Message-----
From: Rose Welsh
Sent: Monday, April 03, 2006 9:35 AM
To: District Attorney
Cc: County Administrator Office; Falor, Tammy
Subject: PUBLIC RECORD ACT REQUEST re GRANTS
April 3, 2006
To: Paul Gallegos
Humboldt County District Attorney's Office
825 Fifth St.
Eureka, CA 95501
PUBLIC RECORD ACT REQUEST - TIME SENSITIVE
Please provide me with the following records in your possession:
REGARDING GRANTS RECEIVED BY THE D.A.'s OFFICE:
Please provide the following records in your possession:
Copies of all records regarding ALL GRANTS received by the District Attorney's Office for the years 2002, 2003, 2004, and 2005, including but not limited to:
1.) The records regarding all grants in the areas of DOMESTIC VIOLENCE and the breakdown of how those funds were ALLOCATED AND SPENT including but not limited to:
a.) the TOTAL AMOUNT RECEIVED for each grant for each of the named years
b.) the CONDITIONS upon which each grant was approved to be spent
c.) the NAMES of each of the district attorney's office employees that were paid using money from these grants, in other words, which positions were funded, in part or in full by these grants
d.) the amount ACTUALLY SPENT on each employee
e.) the TOTAL BREAKDOWN of how each grant was actually spent and the name of the source, person or entity that received the funds
2.) The records regarding ALL GRANTS received by the District Attorney's Office in the areas of CHILD ABUSE for the years 2002, 2003, 2004, and 2005, and the BREAKDOWN of how those funds were spent, including but not limited to:
a.) the TOTAL AMOUNT RECEIVED for each individual grant for each of the named years,
b.) the CONDITIONS upon which each grant was approved to be spent
c.) the NAMES of each of the district attorney's office employees that were paid using money from these grants, in other words, which positions were funded, in part or in full by these grants
d.) the amount ACTUALLY SPENT on each employee
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.
Rosemarie Welsh
CC:
Loretta Nickolaus, CAO
Tamara Falor, County Counsel
April 14, 2006 Public Records Act response
From: "Modell, Linda"
Cc: "Hendry, Richard"
"County Administrator Office"
"Gallegos, Paul"
"Falor, Tammy"
Due to the volume of records in your request and shortage of staff necessary to comply, we are invoking our right to an additional 14 days in which to respond to your request.
-----Original Message-----
From: District Attorney
Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2006 8:32 AM
To: Modell, Linda
Subject: FW: PUBLIC RECORD ACT REQUEST re GRANTS
-----Original Message-----
From:
Sent: Monday, April 03, 2006 9:35 AM
To: District Attorney
Cc: County Administrator Office; Falor, Tammy
Subject: PUBLIC RECORD ACT REQUEST re GRANTS
April 3, 2006
To: Paul Gallegos
Humboldt County District Attorney's Office
825 Fifth St.
Eureka, CA 95501
PUBLIC RECORD ACT REQUEST - TIME SENSITIVE
Please provide me with the following records in your possession:
REGARDING GRANTS RECEIVED BY THE D.A.'s OFFICE:
Please provide the following records in your possession:
Copies of all records regarding ALL GRANTS received by the District Attorney's Office for the years 2002, 2003, 2004, and 2005, including but not limited to:
1.) The records regarding all grants in the areas of DOMESTIC VIOLENCE and the breakdown of how those funds were ALLOCATED AND SPENT including but not limited to:
a.) the TOTAL AMOUNT RECEIVED for each grant for each of the named years
b.) the CONDITIONS upon which each grant was approved to be spent
c.) the NAMES of each of the district attorney's office employees that were paid using money from these grants, in other words, which positions were funded, in part or in full by these grants
d.) the amount ACTUALLY SPENT on each employee
e.) the TOTAL BREAKDOWN of how each grant was actually spent and the name of the source, person or entity that received the funds
2.) The records regarding ALL GRANTS received by the District Attorney's Office in the areas of CHILD ABUSE for the years 2002, 2003, 2004, and 2005, and the BREAKDOWN of how those funds were spent, including but not limited to:
a.) the TOTAL AMOUNT RECEIVED for each individual grant for each of the named years,
b.) the CONDITIONS upon which each grant was approved to be spent
c.) the NAMES of each of the district attorney's office employees that were paid using money from these grants, in other words, which positions were funded, in part or in full by these grants
d.) the amount ACTUALLY SPENT on each employee
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.
Rosemarie Welsh
CC:
Loretta Nickolaus, CAO
Tamara Falor, County Counsel
Cc: "Hendry, Richard"
"County Administrator Office"
"Gallegos, Paul"
"Falor, Tammy"
Due to the volume of records in your request and shortage of staff necessary to comply, we are invoking our right to an additional 14 days in which to respond to your request.
-----Original Message-----
From: District Attorney
Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2006 8:32 AM
To: Modell, Linda
Subject: FW: PUBLIC RECORD ACT REQUEST re GRANTS
-----Original Message-----
From:
Sent: Monday, April 03, 2006 9:35 AM
To: District Attorney
Cc: County Administrator Office; Falor, Tammy
Subject: PUBLIC RECORD ACT REQUEST re GRANTS
April 3, 2006
To: Paul Gallegos
Humboldt County District Attorney's Office
825 Fifth St.
Eureka, CA 95501
PUBLIC RECORD ACT REQUEST - TIME SENSITIVE
Please provide me with the following records in your possession:
REGARDING GRANTS RECEIVED BY THE D.A.'s OFFICE:
Please provide the following records in your possession:
Copies of all records regarding ALL GRANTS received by the District Attorney's Office for the years 2002, 2003, 2004, and 2005, including but not limited to:
1.) The records regarding all grants in the areas of DOMESTIC VIOLENCE and the breakdown of how those funds were ALLOCATED AND SPENT including but not limited to:
a.) the TOTAL AMOUNT RECEIVED for each grant for each of the named years
b.) the CONDITIONS upon which each grant was approved to be spent
c.) the NAMES of each of the district attorney's office employees that were paid using money from these grants, in other words, which positions were funded, in part or in full by these grants
d.) the amount ACTUALLY SPENT on each employee
e.) the TOTAL BREAKDOWN of how each grant was actually spent and the name of the source, person or entity that received the funds
2.) The records regarding ALL GRANTS received by the District Attorney's Office in the areas of CHILD ABUSE for the years 2002, 2003, 2004, and 2005, and the BREAKDOWN of how those funds were spent, including but not limited to:
a.) the TOTAL AMOUNT RECEIVED for each individual grant for each of the named years,
b.) the CONDITIONS upon which each grant was approved to be spent
c.) the NAMES of each of the district attorney's office employees that were paid using money from these grants, in other words, which positions were funded, in part or in full by these grants
d.) the amount ACTUALLY SPENT on each employee
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.
Rosemarie Welsh
CC:
Loretta Nickolaus, CAO
Tamara Falor, County Counsel
April 3, 2006 Public Records Act Request re: Grants
April 3, 2006
To: Paul Gallegos
Humboldt County District Attorney's Office
825 Fifth St.
Eureka, CA 95501
PUBLIC RECORD ACT REQUEST - TIME SENSITIVE
Please provide me with the following records in your possession:
REGARDING GRANTS RECEIVED BY THE D.A.'s OFFICE:
Please provide the following records in your possession:
Copies of all records regarding ALL GRANTS received by the District Attorney's Office for the years 2002, 2003, 2004, and 2005, including but not limited to:
1.) The records regarding all grants in the areas of DOMESTIC VIOLENCE and the breakdown of how those funds were ALLOCATED AND SPENT including but not limited to:
a.) the TOTAL AMOUNT RECEIVED for each grant for each of the named years
b.) the CONDITIONS upon which each grant was approved to be spent
c.) the NAMES of each of the district attorney's office employees that were paid using money from these grants, in other words, which positions were funded, in part or in full by these grants
d.) the amount ACTUALLY SPENT on each employee
e.) the TOTAL BREAKDOWN of how each grant was actually spent and the name of the source, person or entity that received the funds
2.) The records regarding ALL GRANTS received by the District Attorney's Office in the areas of CHILD ABUSE for the years 2002, 2003, 2004, and 2005, and the BREAKDOWN of how those funds were spent, including but not limited to:
a.) the TOTAL AMOUNT RECEIVED for each individual grant for each of the named years,
b.) the CONDITIONS upon which each grant was approved to be spent
c.) the NAMES of each of the district attorney's office employees that were paid using money from these grants, in other words, which positions were funded, in part or in full by these grants
d.) the amount ACTUALLY SPENT on each employee
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.
Rosemarie Welsh
CC:
Loretta Nickolaus, CAO
Tamara Falor, County Counsel
To: Paul Gallegos
Humboldt County District Attorney's Office
825 Fifth St.
Eureka, CA 95501
PUBLIC RECORD ACT REQUEST - TIME SENSITIVE
Please provide me with the following records in your possession:
REGARDING GRANTS RECEIVED BY THE D.A.'s OFFICE:
Please provide the following records in your possession:
Copies of all records regarding ALL GRANTS received by the District Attorney's Office for the years 2002, 2003, 2004, and 2005, including but not limited to:
1.) The records regarding all grants in the areas of DOMESTIC VIOLENCE and the breakdown of how those funds were ALLOCATED AND SPENT including but not limited to:
a.) the TOTAL AMOUNT RECEIVED for each grant for each of the named years
b.) the CONDITIONS upon which each grant was approved to be spent
c.) the NAMES of each of the district attorney's office employees that were paid using money from these grants, in other words, which positions were funded, in part or in full by these grants
d.) the amount ACTUALLY SPENT on each employee
e.) the TOTAL BREAKDOWN of how each grant was actually spent and the name of the source, person or entity that received the funds
2.) The records regarding ALL GRANTS received by the District Attorney's Office in the areas of CHILD ABUSE for the years 2002, 2003, 2004, and 2005, and the BREAKDOWN of how those funds were spent, including but not limited to:
a.) the TOTAL AMOUNT RECEIVED for each individual grant for each of the named years,
b.) the CONDITIONS upon which each grant was approved to be spent
c.) the NAMES of each of the district attorney's office employees that were paid using money from these grants, in other words, which positions were funded, in part or in full by these grants
d.) the amount ACTUALLY SPENT on each employee
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.
Rosemarie Welsh
CC:
Loretta Nickolaus, CAO
Tamara Falor, County Counsel
On PRA Req re: Domestic Violence Grant (5/o6)
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.
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.