Questions Submitted To Sheriff's Dept.
November 26, 2007Jan Caldwell
San Diego County Sheriff's Department
Via Fax: 858-974-2090Dear Jan:On Tuesday, October 16, 2007, CalAware coordinated a statewide audit of law enforcement agencies to determine how they respond to certain public records requests.In California, 120 agencies were audited. Of that number, 22 agencies are in San Diego County. Of those 22 agencies, four of them are San Diego County Sheriff substations.There were two parts to the audit:Oral Request - Property Crime Information
Each auditor was asked to first identify a recent property crime (primarily residential burglaries) within the department's jurisdiction. Most were able to find this information in the local newspaper or on the department's website. If an auditor was unable to find any source for this information, then they were asked to locate a call log from the department and find a property crime within that log. Once a crime was identified, the auditor was asked to approach the desk and request any and all information that could be provided to the public on their identified crime.Written Request - Copy Fees
Each auditor was given a written request to mail the day before the oral request. These written requests were identical, and were focused on the subject of copy/duplication fees.For the oral request portion, there are legally established standards for what information must be released from these reports and agencies were graded on how they complied with the request.I've attached what was included in the written request letter mailed to Sheriff Kolender's attention on October 15, 2007.I've also attached the audit scoring details for the following sheriff substations: Vista, San Marcos, Imperial Beach and Lemon Grove.Each agency received a score for legal compliance and a score for customer service. The grading scale translates as:A+ = 98-100, A = 93-97, A- = 90-92B+ = 88-89, B = 83-87, B- = 80-82C+ = 78-79, C = 73-77, C- = 70-72D+ = 68-69, D = 63-67, D- = 60-62F = less than or equal to 59As you will notice, the four sheriffs substations scored well in customer service, but not in legal compliance. Only one of the substations, in Lemon Grove, provided any information in the oral request portion of the audit. At two of the agencies, the auditor was told that unless he/she was the victim, he/she was not entitled to any information about the incident. At one agency, the auditor was told to look in the local newspaper for further information. And there was no response to the written request.We have questions regarding the audit results:1. How do you feel about how these four San Diego County Sheriff substations performed in this public records audit?2. In the oral request portion of the audit, can you tell us why none of the agencies were aware that they could disclose additional information about the incident in question to any member of the public? Government Code 6254, subdivision (f), paragraph (2) states in part: Subject to the restrictions imposed by Section 841.5 of the Penal Code, the time, substance, and location of all complaints or requests for assistance received by the agency and the time and nature of the response thereto, including, to the extent the information regarding crimes alleged or committed or any other incident investigated is recorded, the time, date, and location of occurrence, the time and date of the report, the name and age of the victim, the factual circumstances surrounding the crime or incident, and a general description of any injuries, property, or weapons involved.3. In last year's public records audit, the sheriff's department performed poorly. It did not make any significant improvements this time around. What efforts has the department made in the last year to make public information more readily available?4. How has the department gone about training its front-counter staff to deal with requests for information from the public?5. What effort is the department making to ensure it comes into compliance with the law in this respect?6. Does the department find an annual, secret audit of its public information services useful?7. What do you think the department can learn from audits like this one?8. The sheriff's department fared well when it came to customer service. Is this something that you have been focusing on?9. Are there any plans to make crime reports more readily available to the public, e.g. via the internet?10. Does the department have adequate funding to meet what is required of it by law for the provision of public information?Jan, you mentioned that any response would be in writing. Please email me and Steve Atkinson, the reporter involved with this story. My email is below. Steve's is steve_atkinson@10news.com.Our deadline is Wed., Nov. 28 at 10 a.m.Thanks for your assistance.Sincerely,Felicia Kit
KGTV 10News
San Diego County Sheriff's Department
Via Fax: 858-974-2090Dear Jan:On Tuesday, October 16, 2007, CalAware coordinated a statewide audit of law enforcement agencies to determine how they respond to certain public records requests.In California, 120 agencies were audited. Of that number, 22 agencies are in San Diego County. Of those 22 agencies, four of them are San Diego County Sheriff substations.There were two parts to the audit:Oral Request - Property Crime Information
Each auditor was asked to first identify a recent property crime (primarily residential burglaries) within the department's jurisdiction. Most were able to find this information in the local newspaper or on the department's website. If an auditor was unable to find any source for this information, then they were asked to locate a call log from the department and find a property crime within that log. Once a crime was identified, the auditor was asked to approach the desk and request any and all information that could be provided to the public on their identified crime.Written Request - Copy Fees
Each auditor was given a written request to mail the day before the oral request. These written requests were identical, and were focused on the subject of copy/duplication fees.For the oral request portion, there are legally established standards for what information must be released from these reports and agencies were graded on how they complied with the request.I've attached what was included in the written request letter mailed to Sheriff Kolender's attention on October 15, 2007.I've also attached the audit scoring details for the following sheriff substations: Vista, San Marcos, Imperial Beach and Lemon Grove.Each agency received a score for legal compliance and a score for customer service. The grading scale translates as:A+ = 98-100, A = 93-97, A- = 90-92B+ = 88-89, B = 83-87, B- = 80-82C+ = 78-79, C = 73-77, C- = 70-72D+ = 68-69, D = 63-67, D- = 60-62F = less than or equal to 59As you will notice, the four sheriffs substations scored well in customer service, but not in legal compliance. Only one of the substations, in Lemon Grove, provided any information in the oral request portion of the audit. At two of the agencies, the auditor was told that unless he/she was the victim, he/she was not entitled to any information about the incident. At one agency, the auditor was told to look in the local newspaper for further information. And there was no response to the written request.We have questions regarding the audit results:1. How do you feel about how these four San Diego County Sheriff substations performed in this public records audit?2. In the oral request portion of the audit, can you tell us why none of the agencies were aware that they could disclose additional information about the incident in question to any member of the public? Government Code 6254, subdivision (f), paragraph (2) states in part: Subject to the restrictions imposed by Section 841.5 of the Penal Code, the time, substance, and location of all complaints or requests for assistance received by the agency and the time and nature of the response thereto, including, to the extent the information regarding crimes alleged or committed or any other incident investigated is recorded, the time, date, and location of occurrence, the time and date of the report, the name and age of the victim, the factual circumstances surrounding the crime or incident, and a general description of any injuries, property, or weapons involved.3. In last year's public records audit, the sheriff's department performed poorly. It did not make any significant improvements this time around. What efforts has the department made in the last year to make public information more readily available?4. How has the department gone about training its front-counter staff to deal with requests for information from the public?5. What effort is the department making to ensure it comes into compliance with the law in this respect?6. Does the department find an annual, secret audit of its public information services useful?7. What do you think the department can learn from audits like this one?8. The sheriff's department fared well when it came to customer service. Is this something that you have been focusing on?9. Are there any plans to make crime reports more readily available to the public, e.g. via the internet?10. Does the department have adequate funding to meet what is required of it by law for the provision of public information?Jan, you mentioned that any response would be in writing. Please email me and Steve Atkinson, the reporter involved with this story. My email is below. Steve's is steve_atkinson@10news.com.Our deadline is Wed., Nov. 28 at 10 a.m.Thanks for your assistance.Sincerely,Felicia Kit
KGTV 10News
