Following a public records audit which several State Hornet reporters participated in, six of the 18 local public education agencies applauded the effort for seeking transparency, but were displeased with the audit’s execution and the number of documents requested.

The audit took place on March 24 through a public rights forum organization known as Californians Aware. Eleven reporters from the Hornet entered the agencies as public citizens and made two requests, an oral request made in person and a written request that followed later that day.

University Counsel for Sacramento State Edmundo Aguilar said the university intends to comply with the auditor’s requests.

“The university respects the principles embodied in the California Public Records Act and strives to treat each request in accordance with those principles,” Aguilar said.

General Counsel for the Los Rios Community College District Jan Sherry said in the three years he has worked as the filing officer for the Form 700, he has never once received a request for the documents, and has never had anyone make a public records request in person.

Sherry wrote the Hornet and CalAware a letter asking for a correction of what he called “egregious” errors in the auditor’s narrative, which is listed on the Hornet and CalAware websites. He also requested an explanation of what happened from the agency’s point of view.

The letter stated: “We applaud your efforts to secure transparency in government, but at the same time, we remind you we are a public agency with limited resources and staff who have significantly more critical workload than to chase down documents that may or may not have anything to do with anything, at the whims of reporters.”

Other agencies, like the Sacramento County Office of Education, said it receives public information requests from different individuals quite often. Communications Director Tim Herrera said he felt the request was not clear and the requester was not patient enough.

“It’s unreasonable for the auditor to walk in and expect the documents to be sitting there ready for them,” Herrera said.

Herrera started off the phone call saying: “I really appreciate what you guys are trying to do. A lot of people don’t know that these (documents) are available to them.”

San Juan Unified School District’s Director of Communication Trent Allen said the auditor’s written request was not clear and therefore created confusion in providing the right documents. The district thought the documents the auditor requested were private information. Allen emphasized that the San Juan district “fully supports the public’s ability to request information from public institutions and aim to provide as much information as possible while respecting the privacy of individuals.”

Allen said he sees openness and transparency as two cornerstones of the organization and takes the trust and responsibility placed on the district very seriously.

Natomas Unified School District Superintendent Steve Farrar was very pleased with the responsiveness of his staff, but was uncomfortable the auditor did not get exactly what he was looking for at the time. After speaking with his staff, Farrar said the staff thought the auditor was requesting documents the staff had to sign, not signed forms that are turned into the county.

“(The) staff thought they were being very helpful by giving him this information, and did not understand that he wanted to look at the hefty stack of current 700s in our office,” Farrar said. “A good reminder of the importance of clarity of communication.”

Some agencies deemed it necessary for their staff to be trained on how to respond to requests like this in the future.

“Moving forward, we plan to provide a refresher course on the Public Records Act for front-line employees,” said Ziggy Robeson, assistant superintendent for Twin Rivers Unified School District.

Emily Francke, executive director for CalAware, hopes the audit will help agencies understand how they need to train their employees in the future.

“Certainly, we don’t expect the person manning the front desk to be trained on the law; we just expect them to be competent enough to know who to hand it off to,” Francke said.

Sherry, in correspondence with the auditor, stated in several letters that the auditor appeared unannounced at the agency’s location.

Terry Francke, general counsel for CalAware, said that to arrive unannounced and ask for the Form 700 was not unreasonable since the law does not require appointments and “contemplates walk-in requests.”

The most frequent comment Francke heard in response is that the agencies were not prepared for the number of documents requested.

“It’s not a justifiable excuse,” Francke said.

CalAware gave the auditors a specific script to follow before the audit took place. On entering the agency, auditors asked for the official in charge of public records and then made an oral request of the Form 700, or statement of economic interest. Following the visit, each auditor wrote a detailed narrative describing his or her experience within the agency.

On the same day as the oral request, each auditor mailed a written letter requesting to view seven to 14 public documents. The agencies were given 10 days to respond with a letter of determination, either with the information or for an extension on the request.

The auditors’ narratives and the agencies grades and responses from CalAware can be found the Web at calaware.org,

Those mentioned in the article scored as follows in legal compliancy and customer service:

San Juan USD: B-, A+

Twin Rivers USD: F, A+

Sacramento County: C, A+

Sac State: C-, A-

Los Rios CCD: F, B-

Natomas USD: B, A-

Michael Mette contributed to this report.

Anne Morrison can be reached at [email protected].