Transparency has been a buzzword on this campus for some time now. It has been a primary concern of President Alexander Gonzalez’s; he has made the university’s budget process more open and visible through the University Budget Advisory Committee.

On March 24, The State Hornet decided to put Sacramento State to the test and see if it achieved transparency.

Map of Agencies Audited

View Audit of Sacramento Education Agencies in a larger map

Full coverage of the Public Records Audit, including auditor narratives.

Operating under Californians Aware, a state government watchdog group, the Hornet executed a secret audit of 18 local educational agencies within the Sacramento area. The agencies included the University of California, Davis; the Los Rios Community College District; the county Office of Education; K-12 school districts throughout the Sacramento area and Sac State.

The Hornet sent 11 reporters to these agencies asking to view the statement of economic interest – also known as the Form 700. The auditors were instructed not to identify themselves as reporters, but instead enter the agencies as average citizens requesting the information.

The goal was to see which agencies were in compliance with the law and provided the requested documents within the legal time limit set by the law. On the same day, the auditors mailed letters to the respective agencies making a written request of several other public records. Under the law, the agencies were required to reply and send a letter of determination within 10 days of receiving the request. The letter of determination stated whether or not the files could be viewed and when the auditor could come by to see them.

After each visit, the reporters assessed the agency’s customer service and legal compliance aspects of their request experience. They scored each agency on whether they received – or were able to view – the requested materials, whether their requests were granted or denied, and whether the agency was courteous in taking the requests.

Along with grading each visit, each reporter wrote a narrative detailing his or her experience requesting the agency’s materials.

CalAware has completed previous audits of law enforcement and state agencies in California, but this is the first time it has completed an evaluation of local educational agencies.

What is Californians Aware?

It’s a nonprofit organization established to help journalists and others keep Californians aware of what they need to know to hold government and other powerful institutions accountable for their actions. Its mission is to support and defend open government, an enquiring press and a citizenry free to exchange facts and opinions on public issues. In short, Californians Aware will be a center for information, guidance and initiatives in public forum law.

Californians Aware’s response to the audit:

The most significant and persistent problem disclosed by the audit was the general ignorance of the 35-year-old law on disclosure of “Form 700” statements of public officials’ financial interest-what they are, how soon they must be made available, how much can be charged for copies, what cannot be asked of the requester, and so on-among the very front-line office people most likely to be asked. Even worse than this ignorance in some cases was actual misinformation, such as the notion that other agencies or their websites were the ones where the forms would be found. From the smallest charter school to the University of California, public educational institutions need to provide their staffs with training on how to deal with walk-in requests for any kind of record or information. This does not mean a knowledge of legal intricacies. It does mean procedures and deadline awareness to see that someone takes responsibility for responding to a citizen’s request for information in a timely and informed fashion.

A related process fault shows up in some of the responses to the written requests, typically drafted (if not signed) by attorneys. Too often, instead of picking up the phone or sending an e-mail to clear up a perceived ambiguity in a particular item and thereby enabling a conclusive “yes” or “no” as soon as possible, the authors of the determination letters either read the request narrowly and conclude that there are no “responsive records” or simply announce, in the final determination letter which may arrive weeks later, that the request was too “vague” or “broad.”

Finally, the responses to the written requests repeatedly cite two rationales for denying access to particular records that have little or no basis in the law. Three decisions of the California Court of Appeal issued over 35 years-two of them overruling denials by school districts-conclude that public employees have no right of privacy to bar disclosure of, and their employers may not withhold, records showing complaints of serious misconduct that are found substantiated by investigation, or have other hallmarks of reliability. If the employees are public figures such as superintendents or other top officials, disclosure of investigative findings may be required, even when they tend to exonerate the official, if doing so is necessary to restore public confidence. – Terry Francke, general counsel of Californians Aware

Michael Mette can be reached at [email protected].