power of government officials to avoid disclosure of their emails

This is an issue with cities like Lakewood who for some unexplained reason allow city council members to use their own personal email on official city business when there is no technological reason for doing so. Also unlike most cities Lakewood has refused to post city emails of city councilmembers or top city staff: The effect is to all but eliminate traceable, dated written contact with the city or to discourage effective communication altogether while giving the impression that the city is "e" enabled. Quite frankly LAAG does not trust any so called tracking program set up by the city. (read about city touting is Jan 2007 "system") Whose to say these requests and all the follow up won't get "lost" or "accidentally deleted" after there is a public records act request for them?



Read on....

Tuesday, May 29, 2007
Commentary
http://www.cfac.org/content/index.php/cfac-news/index/

Tracy case tests the power of government officials to avoid disclosure of their emails on public business. Fed up Tracy residents should refuse to pay the officials’ legal fees.

By Peter Scheer

Those enterprising members of the Tracy City Council have come up with a strategy to hide from public view all their written communications about government business. With a bit of legal legerdemain, they claim to be able to evade state open-government laws, transforming their communications from public records into private correspondence.

How can they do that? Simple, according to their legal pleadings in a lawsuit in San Joaquin County Superior Court: When sending or receiving email, as long as the council members use their own computer (rather than a city-owned computer), and as long as they use their own email account (rather than an account set up by the city), their messages are not subject to the Public Records Act, no matter what the emails say or to whom they’re sent.

The Public Records Act defines a public record as “any writing containing information relating to the conduct of the public’s business prepared, owned, used, or retained by any state or local agency . . .” (emphasis added.) Email that is not composed on a Tracy computer or transmitted via a Tracy email account or server is not “prepared, owned, used or retained” by the city of Tracy, argue the council members.

This novel theory is advanced in a case involving Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, the subject of considerable public interest and media scrutiny in San Joaquin County. The Tracy Press requested, under the Public Records Act, copies of emails between city council members and the lab concerning a proposal to build a bio-agent weapons research facility. The newspaper filed suit after its request was denied on grounds the emails were not public records. (Full disclosure: CFAC filed a friend-of-the-court brief in this case in support of Tracy Press.)

You don’t have to be a First Amendment expert to see that Tracy’s theory, if accepted by the courts, would convert California’s Public Records Act into its opposite, an Official Secrecy Act. Elected officials and public employees would use official email accounts for proclamations, resolutions, press releases and other official drivel intended for public consumption, while switching to their personal yahoo accounts, insulated from public attention, for everything else--which is to say, all communications that are remotely substantive, important, sensitive, controversial or otherwise of interest.

Fortunately, the City Council’s creative interpretation of the Public Records Act is dead wrong.

Public officials, whether employees or elected officers, are agents of their respective governmental entities when they engage in public business. A city council member in Tracy, when composing and sending an email about Lawrence Livermore Lab--indisputably the “public’s business” for someone in that position--does so as an agent of Tracy. The linkage is not optional; it is inescapable given the subject of the email.

As agent of the city of Tracy, the council member’s composing and sending the email is imputed to Tracy, even if the council member believes or wishes otherwise. Tracy, in other words, is deemed to have “prepared, owned . . . [and] used” the email to the same extent as the council member--which means the email is a public record belonging to Tracy.

But even if the email could be withheld lawfully under the Public Records Act, it has to be turned over under Article I, § 3(b) of the California Constitution. Article I, § 3(b), better known as Proposition 59 (enacted in 2004), creates a new constitutional right to the “writings of public officials.” The right is independent of the Public Records Act or any other law. The right would exist even if the Legislature, in a paroxysm of secrecy, repealed all open-government statutes.

The analysis under Article I, § 3(b) is simple. Are the contested emails “writings”? The answer is clearly yes. Are council members “public officials”? Yes again. The emails therefore must be disclosed. How they were created and transmitted over the internet--the ownership of the computer and email account--are appropriately irrelevant under Article I, § 3(b).

The Tracy City Council has been clever in its attempt to immunize email from open-government mandates. But one wonders whether the residents of Tracy will share their representatives’ enthusiasm for cutting off public access to all the council members’ most important written communications. If not, here’s a suggestion for the folks in Tracy: Make the council members pay their own legal fees in this case. That will give them pause the next time they try to make themselves less accountable to voters by curtailing access to information voters have every right to see.

Peter Scheer, a lawyer and journalist, is executive director of CFAC

Rosemead is not too far behind Lakewood

Well Rosemead is not too far behind Lakewood. It just goes to show that until these cities are called on the carpet for this lax attitude this is what were are going to get. See all our related stories under the subject "Open Government: Mission Unfulfilled" (on the right margin of this page)


http://www.sgvtribune.com/news/ci_5940540

Rosemead lags in getting the word out
City struggles to achieve public records efficiency
By Jennifer McLain Staff Writer

ROSEMEAD - The city is behind the times in providing public information.

As other cities offer reports online, Rosemead residents can only view paper documents for city business at three locations. Copies will cost 15 cents a page. West Covina broadcasts its City Council meetings on television and on the Web, and Diamond Bar's meetings can also be seen online.

Not in Rosemead - its meetings are only audio video taped.

"I think we got a late start," said City Manager Andrew Lazzaretto, adding that the city's Web site was introduced a year ago. Meeting agendas are posted on the site. "And I can guarantee that a lot of the systems and records are in disarray."

Limited financial resources, cluttered and inefficient archives and a past disinterest in technology are some of reasons why the city is behind the times in providing public information via the Internet, officials said.

Rosemead also has difficulty in responding timely to public information requests or acknowledging that the requests will be filled late.

"It is unlawful and inexcusable," said Terry Francke, counsel for Californians Aware, an open-government advocacy group. "They do it because no one has seriously called them out on it."

Rosemead council members did not respond to calls seeking comment.

Resident Jim Flournoy, who has several pending lawsuits against the city, thinks Rosemead is "terrible" at responding to public records requests.

"We don't think they answer the requests at all," he said. "We put in a request in November, and we didn't get a response until March or April."

City Clerk Nina Castruita said that she tries to let people know how their request is coming along, although responding to requests is difficult with only one full-time employee in the clerk's office and an antiquated records system.

According to the California Public Records Act, agencies are required promptly, and in no case more than 10 days from the date of the request, to determine and inform the applicant in writing as to whether the request will be granted. In some cases, agencies can take an additional 14 days to make a determination.

Marlene Shinen, a San Gabriel resident who was against the construction of Wal-Mart, said she has made records requests and one has been outstanding for months.

"I never got a letter for a request I made on Feb. 11," she said. "There's been so much stalling, dismissal, neglect, brush-off, whatever you want to call it."

Lazzaretto said he thinks the city is adhering to state law.

"I think we are fulfilling the requests as best we can," Lazzaretto said. "Some of our systems are not where we need to be."

The CPRA also limits the fee that could be charged for making copies. The law permits a direct cost of duplication.

"They can't charge any more than making the council copies," Francke said. "15 cents is well beyond the cost of direct duplication."

A request for documents concerning when the City Council approved how much the city would charge for documents and how it came to that figure has not yet been responded to. The request was made on May 10.

But posting documents online could eventually be a cost savings, Francke said.

"The thing about posting documents of any kind on a Web site is that by and large, it eliminates a lot of specific records requests," Francke said.

Lazzaretto thinks the city will eventually join the ranks of Monterey Park, West Covina, Diamond Bar and Azusa, who provide either staff reports online, broadcast their council meetings on television, or streamline the meetings online.

"I'm kind of envious of these cities, where you could go on their Web site and get all kinds of slick information," Lazzaretto said. "I think we are moving in that direction."

jennifer.mclain@sgvn.com

(626) 962-8811, Ext. 2477

3% of LASD complaints lead to formal investigations

File this in the "we already figured that" file. This is what happens when you have a lower profile than the LAPD (and "fly under the radar") and no direct city council control or citizen watchdogs over an agency. LASD provides services in many small cities like Lakewood whose city councils rarely question LASD actions, unlike the LA City Council which along with the ACLU and a host of other organizations is watching LAPD like a hawk.

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/california/la-me-sheriff17may17,1,4409673.story?coll=la-headlines-pe-california

From the Los Angeles Times
Study faults some deputy probes
L.A. County sheriff's response to complaints is found to be improved but inconsistent overall.

By Stuart Pfeifer
Times Staff Writer

May 17, 2007

The Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department has improved the way it investigates allegations of deputy misconduct, but it often reduces discipline without explanation, according to a report released Wednesday.

Merrick Bobb, an attorney hired by the Board of Supervisors to review the Sheriff's Department, studied hundreds of misconduct investigations initiated in 2005. He found that the department has made "great strides" since the early 1990s in investigating public complaints about deputies' behavior.

In most cases, the department investigates complaints thoroughly and objectively, Bobb found. He said investigations were inadequate in about one in five cases, faulting sheriff's managers in those cases for failing to interview all pertinent witnesses, writing biased or incomplete reports or improperly documenting investigations.

"The LASD's commitment to the fair investigation of citizens' complaints has strengthened considerably," wrote Bobb, who was hired in 1993 to monitor the department's reform efforts following allegations of excessive force and concern about the citizen complaint process.

The department handles complaints about deputies differently from the Los Angeles Police Department. Pursuant to a consent decree, the LAPD must formally investigate all complaints through its internal affairs unit. The Sheriff's Department handles complaints from the public informally at the station to which the deputy is assigned. Sheriff's station supervisors can request formal internal affairs investigations of citizens' complaints. Bobb found that just 3% of complaints lead to formal investigations.

The report also concluded that the department too often agrees to reduce discipline imposed on deputies who violate department policies ranging from the use of force during arrests to unsafe driving of patrol cars and off-duty incidents, such as drunk driving.

In one instance, a deputy received a three-day suspension for making racially insensitive comments in a telephone conversation with a member of the public and for telling the caller, "I don't have time for this," before hanging up. After the deputy complained about his punishment, a captain put the suspension in abeyance, meaning it would be imposed only if the deputy committed a new offense.

"In our view, the captain fumbled and the deputy recovered the ball and went on to score a touchdown," Bobb wrote in his report.

Sheriff Lee Baca said he believes holding discipline in abeyance provides incentive for deputies to reform.

"Settlement agreements give management a stronger capacity [to prevent] future misconduct," Baca said. "They've agreed not to transgress again."

The department reduced discipline in 84% of the cases in which a suspension was imposed, the report said.

Most often, the discipline was reduced after deputies complained to their captains that they thought their punishment was excessive, the report said.

"The department must stop letting the grievance process be a one-way ticket to a reduced discipline," Bobb wrote. The report said it appears the department "plea bargains" discipline cases as a matter of routine.

Bobb and his staff studied investigations of deputies assigned to six sheriff's stations: Century, Compton, Lakewood, Palmdale, Pico Rivera and Santa Clarita.

In one instance, a deputy had accumulated 11 complaints of discourteous conduct in the past three years, including six in which his conduct was faulted by supervisors. Despite this record, the deputy was not subjected to a broad investigation.

Unopposed board raised $8 million....Does this surprise anyone?

Really who would have expected this? The goal of most local politicos is to make stuff as hard to find as possible to keep the public in the dark but still have some degree of "plausible deniability". "Oh you want to know what we are up to...go look thru some musty old records in the basement" Good luck trying to find anything or if you do, connecting it to us. All this "stuff" needs to be on the internet. The state legislature needs to prevent this type of activity by local politicians (at City an County level) by requiring that ALL local agencies put all their "back room dealings" on the internet so we can all Google them and see what they are up to. The feds are starting to see that transparency and ease of access for the public is necessary and quite frankly, our right as taxpayers. See The Federal Funding Accountability And Transparency Act Of 2006

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-supes13may13,0,2568564.story?coll=la-home-center

Unopposed board raised $8 million
A Times database looks at more than 15,000 contributions to L.A. County supervisors.

By Jack Leonard and Doug Smith, Times Staff Writers

May 13, 2007

It has been more than a decade since any of Los Angeles County's five supervisors faced a serious election contest, but that hasn't curbed their appetite for campaign cash.

A Times analysis of political donations shows that supervisors have raised more than $8 million since 1998, tapping businesses, labor unions and individuals who have stakes in decisions made by the nation's largest county government.

The supervisors have used their political war chests to scare off potential opponents, donate to favorite political causes and spend on personal campaign items, including a gun permit in one case and UCLA sports tickets in another.

Until now, the scope of these political donations was almost impossible to gauge. Unlike other local governments — including the cities of Los Angeles and Long Beach — the county has never made such contributions accessible in a searchable online database.

But over the last four months, The Times has built a database of more than 15,000 contributions and, starting today, it is available at latimes.com. A review of the donations provides the most comprehensive look yet at who has given money to the supervisors since voters approved strict limits on campaign contributions in 1996.

• Developers dominate the list of the most generous donors, with Newhall Land & Farming Co. on top. The company, along with its executives and their relatives, gave about $65,000. The supervisors have approved the company's plans to build a 20,885-home development at Newhall Ranch, despite opposition from environmentalists.

• Other top contributors include companies that have been awarded contracts to provide services to the county. For example, Premier Building Maintenance and its officers have given $39,700. Last year, the county paid Premier $5 million for janitorial services. A company executive said the firm won its contracts in open and fair bidding.

• Supervisors have held their wallets open even when they faced no opposition. In 2000, when their terms were about to expire, Supervisors Yvonne Brathwaite Burke, Don Knabe and Mike Antonovich ran unopposed on the ballot yet amassed as a group more than $1.4 million.

• In 1998, more than a year after voters approved limits on the amount donors can give to the supervisors, Knabe, who was newly elected, used a legal loophole to raise money in excess of those limits to pay election debts. He collected 40 donations exceeding the $1,000 limit per donor, raising nearly $120,000.

Nothing prohibits contractors and developers with projects pending before the county board from giving money to a supervisor's campaign. And supervisors defend their practice of accepting such donations, saying they need the money to ensure reelection.

They insist that they do not allow campaign cash to influence their government decisions and point to instances when they have voted against contributors.

"Any time you get to a place where you feel because you get $1,000 you have to vote for their issue, you're in trouble," Burke said.

Antonovich said: "People who contribute are buying my philosophy. I'm not buying theirs."

Campaign reform advocates expressed skepticism, however, noting that the largest donors gave to all five supervisors, whose political views span a broad spectrum. Burke, Zev Yaroslavsky and Gloria Molina are Democrats; Knabe and Antonovich are Republicans.

Kathay Feng, executive director of California Common Cause, said elected officials should be barred from voting on issues that would probably benefit contributors.

She cited rules that prohibit Metropolitan Transportation Authority board members — who include all five supervisors — from accepting more than $10 from companies that seek contracts from the transit agency.

"It creates a perception that people who make large donations get additional access to our elected officials," Feng said. "Sometimes, that impression can translate into real influence."

Feng also criticized county leaders for failing to move sooner to offer a more accessible way to see who contributes to supervisors. The county registrar-recorder's office posts printed copies of campaign finance reports on its website, but they are difficult to view and do not allow the public to easily search for donors.

The state and some local government agencies provide better online tools for the public. The secretary of state's office launched its Web database for candidates running for state office in 2000. The city of Los Angeles' online database includes donations since 1998, when Ethics Commission workers started computerizing contributions to candidates for city offices.

County Registrar-Recorder Conny McCormack said efforts to use the same software the city uses were stalled until recently by legal and technology concerns. The county is preparing to launch its own online database this summer.

The database will initially include contributions made since January to candidates for supervisor, sheriff, district attorney and assessor. McCormack said the county would not add older contributions, saying staff shortages and the county's rules on soliciting bids for outsourced work would make the task too difficult.

"There's no legal requirement for us to go back," she said. "It would be a huge amount of work."

The Times spent $6,300 to hire a private company to computerize the supervisors' campaign finance records back to 1998. The newspaper then built its own database, which includes monetary and nonmonetary contributions, refunds and loans.

A review of the data shows that Knabe, Antonovich and Yaroslavsky each raised more than $2 million over the last nine years. Burke collected $1.4 million. Molina — who makes little secret of her distaste for fundraising — lagged well behind with $527,589.

In 1996, county voters approved a ballot measure that in most cases restricts donations to campaign accounts to $1,000 per donor per election cycle. Until then, the county had no limits, and some unions and businesses pumped tens of thousands of dollars into individual campaigns.

A review of the donations shows that the limits have eliminated such large one-time donations and reduced the influence individual donors can exert on an election.

"I think it's totally changed the dynamic of political campaigns and the appearance of favoritism completely," said Yaroslavsky, who wrote the campaign reform measure.

In 1998, Knabe exceeded the limits by accepting donations of as much as $5,000 to pay off expenses from his 1996 election, which took place before the rules took effect. His spokesman said he raised the money only after receiving a memo from county lawyers saying it was legal to do so.

Among his top donors were investors who lease land from the county in Marina del Rey and developers, such as Newhall Land, that need county approval for their projects.

Interest groups continue to dominate the top donors to supervisors, despite the 1996 reforms. The $1,000 limit does not stop a company, its executives and employees and their relatives from each giving the maximum allowed. In addition, donors can contribute not only to supervisors' campaign committees but also to legal defense and officeholder accounts that all five supervisors keep for official business expenses.

Newhall Land, its executives and their relatives have provided steady support to most of the supervisors. The developer gave most generously in 1999 and 2003, coinciding with the two votes the board took in approving the company's sprawling Newhall Ranch development.

"If they don't vote for the projects, they won't continue to get the contributions," said Lynne Plambeck, an environmentalist who opposes the Newhall project.

Yaroslavsky voted against the project in 2003, the only supervisor to do so. The company has not donated to him since.

Newhall spokeswoman Marlee Lauffer said the developer does not contribute in order to gain favor for its own projects.

"We've … given to people who we think better the quality of life in Los Angeles County," she said.

Because no supervisor has faced a run-off election in more than a decade, they are left with millions of dollars that campaign rules say cannot be used in future elections. Supervisors donate most of it to charities, civic groups and ballot measures.

But other expenditures stand out. In 1998, Antonovich used contributions to pay the Sheriff's Department $109 for a permit to carry a concealed weapon. Antonovich, a retired reserve police officer, said he sought the permit in response to threats on his life.

"My personal protection is connected to my performance of my duties as an elected official," he said.

State law allows expenditures that are directly related to a political, legislative or governmental purpose.

Yaroslavsky, a Bruins fan who likes to quote legendary basketball coach John Wooden, spent thousands of dollars on UCLA football and basketball tickets.

In response to questions about the tickets, Yaroslavsky provided a written statement, saying he took guests "whose responsibilities overlap with mine as an elected official or who have roles in the communities I represent that overlap with my responsibilities as an elected official."

*

jack.leonard@latimes.com

doug.smith@latimes.com

*

Political donations

A review of financial contributions to Los Angeles County's five supervisors shows that they have raised more than $8 million since 1998, even though none has faced a serious election challenge in a decade.

Mike Antonovich: $2,164,576

Zev Yaroslavsky: 2,040,911

Don Knabe: 2,014,349

Yvonne Brathwaite Burke: 1,413,036

Gloria Molina: 527,589

TOTAL: $8,160,461

--

Named below are a few of the most generous contributors, many of whom do business with the county. The amounts can include contributions made by the company, its executives and employees and their relatives.

Newhall Land & Farming Co. (developer): $65,600

Del Rey Shores (leaseholder of county land in Marina del Rey): $49,750

Premier Building Maintenance (county janitorial services contractor): $39,700

Tarzana Treatment Center (county contractor and drug and alcohol treatment provider): $35,800

B. Butler Enterprises/Scapular House/Canon Human Services Centers (county contractor and drug and alcohol treatment provider): $34,900

California Commerce Casino (casino): $34,075

American Medical Response (county contractor and ambulance services provider): $32,800

Watson Land Co. (developer): $29,350

Louis Weider (former leaseholder of county land in Marina del Rey): $26,375

Tejon Ranch Co. (developer): $21,687

L.A. County violated state's open meetings law

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-secrecy21apr21,1,6492712.story

From the Los Angeles Times
Legal experts say L.A. County violated state's open meetings law
By Jack Leonard and Susannah Rosenblatt
Times Staff Writers

April 21, 2007

The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, long criticized for conducting public business behind closed doors, violated the state's open meetings law earlier this week when members privately selected a headhunting firm to find a new top manager, according to several open-government experts.

The board unanimously voted during a closed meeting on Tuesday to negotiate a recruitment contract with Ralph Andersen & Associates. Legal experts said the state's Ralph M. Brown Act requires such discussions to be held in public.

The board's decision was made as the district attorney's office investigates a separate allegation that supervisors violated the Brown Act three weeks ago. Prosecutors launched their probe after a member of the public complained that the board tried to discuss in private the federal government's decision to continue funding for Martin Luther King Jr.-Harbor Hospital.

"I think their track record as to recognizing their responsibility to the public is really a miserable one," said Rich McKee, an open-government activist who has successfully sued the county and other public agencies for violating the Brown Act.

Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky, who chairs the board, said he and his colleagues relied on the advice of their county counsel, who told them their actions were legal. He noted that supervisors ultimately discussed the hospital funding issue in public.

"I think that the board has expended a lot of time, energy and resources to comply with the Brown Act," Yaroslavsky said. "It doesn't mean that you're perfect, but I think the county has done a far better job than it has done in the past and a far better job than many local government entities are doing."

The controversy comes at a time of growing concern about secrecy in California government. Open-government activists complain that a recent Supreme Court decision has prompted closings of police disciplinary hearings, and an attorney general's opinion has limited the information prosecutors can release about criminal cases.

There are few sanctions for public agencies that break the state's open meetings law. Prosecutors rarely file charges against public officials accused of discussing public matters in secret. The usual remedy is for prosecutors or members of the public to file suit to invalidate the vote. A judge can order the guilty agency to pay a plaintiff's legal fees.

County supervisors have a mixed record on Brown Act compliance. In 2001, they voted in closed session to instruct lawyers to block a ballot initiative that sought higher wages for workers who cared for disabled people. McKee and The Times sued. A state appellate court ruled that the board broke the law and tried to conceal it.

In 2004, Dist. Atty. Steve Cooley concluded that supervisors violated the law when they met privately and decided to close the trauma center at Martin Luther King Jr./Drew Medical Center. The Times sued again.

But a Superior Court judge disagreed with Cooley, ruling that the board was justified in privately discussing the trauma unit's fate as it grappled with threats from federal health inspectors to pull about $200 million in funding.

In the most recent episode, county supervisors met Tuesday morning to privately discuss the choice of a recruitment firm to find candidates to replace Chief Administrative Officer David Janssen. Earlier this year, the county offered the CAO job to two candidates, only to be rejected by both.

Some supervisors had criticized the county's approach to finding candidates. So, though the board rarely interviews recruitment firms, Janssen said supervisors wanted to be involved. Officials from two headhunting firms spoke during the meeting before the board made its selection, Janssen said.

The Brown Act prohibits elected bodies from privately discussing issues that involve an independent contractor, unless the contractor is working as a county employee.

County Counsel Raymond G. Fortner Jr. said the county's decision complied with state law because the recruitment firm will perform work similar to that of a county human resources employee. "They're doing essentially what county staff are doing or can do," Fortner said. "It's a short-term, temporary item."

But several 1st Amendment lawyers said they doubted such an explanation would hold up in court and described the board's action as a violation of the law.

"I think that the county counsel's position is dead wrong," said James Chadwick, a partner with Sheppard Mullin in San Francisco. "It's one of the clearer examples of a violation of the Brown Act that I've heard."

Terry Francke, author of a book about the Brown Act and general counsel for Californians Aware, a nonprofit open-government group, agreed.

"If they knew they were going to talk about independent contractor recruiting firms," he said, "they should have recognized right away that that should have been in open session."

jack.leonard@latimes.com

susannah.rosenblatt@latimes.com

Open and Accessible government....are they kidding?

Remarks by Mayor Diane DuBois on assuming the office of Mayor of Lakewood
March 27, 2007

This is taken from the announcement verbatim:

"Accessible government
We also pledge to uphold another Lakewood value: an open and accessible city government. Our new “Lakewood Connect” service provides you with 24/7 access to city services and information. It provides a way for you to track the status of your service requests.It makes your city more accountable to you in meeting your service needs. I invite you to go online today to www.lakewoodcity.org and become more connected to your community."

As it happens LAAG sent an email to the City Council on March 27, 2007 noting how lacking its website was [see 3/27/07 email below]. As of this date there has been no response at all. Typical. Is this the City's idea of an open government? Is not responding their way of dealing with the problem? Apparently. We also requested that the city (on more than one occasion) keep the agendas current on the web page. The city responded that essentially they are not required to and that this is just done as a courtesy to residents. We pointed out it was not a courtesy if it was not current. It was basically useless.

Why does LAAG make such a big deal over openness? Well look at the scandals that have happened in a number of small cities in LA county (Like Maywood and Cudahy to name a few) that were essentially allowed to fester due to the fact that there really was no one watching the city council. We have lots of investigative reporters looking into what the federal government and the state are doing but very little at the city level. All this is made harder by a lack of "REAL" information.

LAAG is pretty much fed up with Lakewood City Hall refusing to post agendas timely on the website at least 72 hours before the city council meetings. The law only requires that they post the agendas somewhere at city hall (broom closet?) and three other "mystery" public places not on the website. (Supposedly they are also at the Library on Calrk St. but no luck there finding anything current) Why might you ask would they fail to post this information on the website? After all they post dance class schedules there. Well the best way to "slip" things past sleeping voters is to just not alert them to issues and do the the bare minimum as required by law (ie don't post stuff on the site or send out an email with real agenda items on it or you could end up with some angry or curious residents at your meeting and they don't want that!)

As for the agendas this was brought to the city's attention a few times but still the repeated problem has not been fixed. For example as of 1/15/07 the current agenda posted on the website was 12/12/06. As of 3/17/07 the "most current" agenda posted on the site is dated 2/27/07. This is a big deal as the agenda is the only way busy residents can see what is going on and if they need to go to a meeting. That is the purpose of agendas.

Our 3/21/07 email inquired further specifically on the agenda posting:

"Where exactly are they [the agendas] posted [by law], when exactly are they posted, during what hours are they available and is the full agenda package [supporting and backup material] available for viewing at those three "public" locations? Is the city hall closing always the Friday before the tues meeting? As you know making this available M-Th 9am 5pm is not really convenient for most people who work.

As far as US mailing agendas what does that cost per year? Also are they put in the mail 72 hrs (3 days) before the meeting or earlier? I would suspect that [LAAG] would not get them in sufficient time to act on anything in the agenda."

There was no response to this above email as of 4/1/07.

LAAG has asked the Sheriff's department on 4 separate occasions for the last two months for crime statistics for 2006. No response at all. So we will have to do a public records act request. Neither the City nor the Sheriff's department apparently feels it is worth their time to document and back up their vague and grandiose statements about crime "reduction".

This is just a sampling of the lack of information about current issues being decided in the city. The email below contains more examples.

Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 15:13:55 -0700

To: TSRR@msn.com (Todd Rogers, City Council), bayoujo@aol.com (Joe Esquivel, City Council), JEsquive@lakewoodcity.org (Joe Esquivel, City Council), oldeacon@aol.com (Larry Van Nostran, city council), LVanNost@lakewoodcity.org (Larry Van Nostran, city council), stacro@aol.com (Steve Croft, city council), DDuBois@lakewoodcity.org (Diane DuBois, City Council), HChamber@lakewoodcity.org (Howard Chambers, City Mgr), SRuyle@lakewoodcity.org (Sandi Ruyle, Deputy City Mgr), LNovotny@lakewoodcity.org (Lisa Novotny Asst City Mgr), MStover@lakewoodcity.org (Mike Stover Asst City Mgr), "Denise Hayward, Lkwd City Clerk"

From: "www.LAAG.us | Lakewood Accountability Action Group"

Subject: web page..."Times change....Lakewood doesn't"

Cc: "Bob Brammer, Lkwd webmaster" , "Linda Price"


One of many examples of how you do a city web page right. http://www.cityoftemecula.org/Temecula/Government/Meetings_and_Agendas/CityCouncil/

FYI: temecula pop: 93,923 (2006)

Temecula: One click and you can email all the city council members with real city email addresses:

Lakewood: Email addresses not even provided

Temecula: Minutes and agendas posted TIMELY and archived (back to 1/06) in an easy to locate fashion

Lakewood: nope

Temecula: Agenda also have supporting materials on line!! All linked to the agenda..what a dream

Lakewood: Dream on...cant even get the agenda to the library next door on time...in good old 1950's paper version

Temecula: Full screen windows media (also on FIOS tv) and ARCHIVED ready for viewing ANY TIME

Lakewood: Better be sitting at your computer at 730pm stream time as its not archived video like everyone else does on You Tube

Temecula: Public hearing notices: http://www.cityoftemecula.org/Temecula/Government/PublicHearing/

Lakewood: Nope

Temecula: Business licences on line:
http://www.cityoftemecula.org/Temecula/Businesses/Assistance/BusinessLicenses/BusLic.htm

Lakewood: cant even put the business lic. form on line! let alone the licences

Temecula Muni code: http://www.cityoftemecula.org/Temecula/Government/CityClerk/CodeOrdinancesResos/
(of course they use Lexis like many cities; first rate and up to date; the WHOLE code; I mentioned Lexis to you months ago)

Lakewood: only 2 muni code articles. Most of the code is missing. Project mired down and way behind the times and behind schedule.

Temecula: lots of current info on line http://laserfiche.cityoftemecula.org/weblink7/Browse.aspx?dbid=2

Minutes, agendas and ordinances back to 1989!!! Note they are even using a more updated version of Laser fiche than Lakewood (it has a search function Lakewood's does not...very helpful)

Lakewood: Nope...you want a record come down and look at it (..oh and were are closed alternating Fridays)

Temecula: parcel info all online: http://chtemp.cityoftemecula.org/GIS_ArcIMS/Viewer/Top/Viewer.asp?app=parcels
http://www.cityoftemecula.org/Temecula/Government/IS_GIS/GIS/

Lakewood: looked up "GIS" on Lakewood page and got this??: http://www.lakewoodcity.org/news/displaynews.asp?NewsID=822

Temecula: Entire 214 page current budget on line as well as the 2006-07 CIP Budget and the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) (160 pages)
http://www.cityoftemecula.org/Temecula/Government/Finance/Budget/

Lakewood: Have to make due with 39 pages of cute pictures and pie charts http://www.lakewoodcity.org/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=3680
(dont want to get into all those numbers as the devil is in the details);

FYI: Lakewood budget 55 million and temecula is 61 million (but they have a few more residents and their own PD; yet another story)

Even the city council resumes are impressive: http://www.cityoftemecula.org/Temecula/Government/CouncilCommissions/CityCouncil/

(Of course I guess that is why the Temecula web page is clean, up to date and thorough (less fluff on softball and more meat on what the city is doing or not doing)

No go back and look at your web page again and see what you can improve. Quite frankly I think there is lots of room for improvement and I think Lakewood is in the bottom tier of cities with respect to meaty information on their website. On another note I also asked the city clerk in Temecula if the city will email electronic versions of documents for free and they said yes. And they responded the same day they received the email.

Open Government

LAAG is pretty much fed up with Lakewood City Hall refusing to provide timely agendas at least 72 hours before the city council meetings. The law only requires that they post the agendas at city hall not on the website. How convenient for busy voters who work for a living. Just go down to city hall after work and look at the agenda. Same with city council meetings. Make sure they are not archived on the city's website so you cant just go see them when you want or skip ahead to the parts you are interested in. The best way to "slip" things past sleeping voters is to just not alert them to issues and do only the bare minimum as required by law (ie don't post stuff on the website or send out an email or you could end up with some angry voters at your meeting and they don't want that!)

As for the agendas this was brought to the city's attention as noted below but still the problem has not been fixed. For example as of 1/15/07 the current agenda posted on the website was 12/12/06. As of 3/17/07 the "most current" agenda posted on the site is dated 2/27/07. This is a big deal as the agenda is the only way busy residents can see what is going on and if they need to go to a meeting. That is the purpose of agendas.

LAAG has asked the Sheriff's department on 4 separate occasions for the last two months for crime statistics. No response at all. Neither the City nor the Sheriff's department want to back up their vague and grandiose statements about crime "reduction"

LAAG is working to resolve these and many other lack of transparency issues.

E Government: Mission unfulfilled

The city of Lakewood is telling citizens that it "embraces" "e-Government" but it only posts material that is non controversial and not likely to lead to public criticism of government. Stay tuned for more on this subject.