Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
A Torturous Tale of Seeking Public Records from the SCPD
This is the saga of the struggle to get police records and the kind of bureaucratic resistance you can find there. I'm still trying to decipher the records I did get in order to get some sense of the accuracy of Zach Friend's comments about the City Hall Sleep Out in early August.
On August 19th, the Sentinel came out with its Sunday smear job justifying the unconstitutional police sleepcrime ticketing of Homies for the Homeless at City Hall. SCPD PR propagandist Zach Friend returned one call then declined any further information.
On August 20th, I filed a Public Records Act requesting the "detailed incident summaries" of August 12-18 to determine just how many tickets and citations were issued for the alleged vandalism, bathroom littering, drug use, public sex, etc. etc. alleged by Friend in the Sentinel story. ["Homeless camp-in booted from lawn in front of Santa Cruz City Hall" http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/archive/2007/August/19/local/stories/03local.htm]
Indymedia covered the story somewhat differently: ["Ongoing Protest Against the Santa Cruz Sleeping Ban" at http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2007/08/16/18440985.php]
For some criticism of the Sentinel coverage see "Sleep Ban Fighters Regroup after Saturday Morning Police Raid" at http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2007/08/18/ 18441394.php
The preliminary answer Trisha provided was that NO TICKETS were issued at City Hall during that week for anything other than sleeping, 2 on Monday August 13, 4 on Saturday August 18.
I wanted to go further to find out what the nature of the complaints were and who made them. To uncover this, I requested the detailed incident recall traffic (between the 911 dispatch and the cops responding) for that period of time.
I just wanted to view it, not buy copies. Records supervisor Trisha Husome refused.
I requested electronic copies. Records supervisor Trish Husome insisted they were not available.
I requested to know how much it would cost. Husome said there was no way of knowing. I'd have to deposit $35 and then pay overage, depending on what was printed up.
I then asked her to print out half the request, so that I could get a sense of how many pages were coming out and what I was getting. She insisted that a new Public Records Act request be made.
I did this under protest.
I also made a second request for to view (no dice), or get an electronic copy (nope) of the detailed incident recall of August 26 (when Rotkin blocked our way into the ACLU meeting and called the cops because we wouldn't relinquish our signs). [See "Activists ask ACLU to help end sleeping ban" http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2007/08/26/18443532.php]
This time, somehow, she told me it would be $1. But she insisted I make another trip down to the police station to make the $1 deposit, and refused to take it out of the $35 deposit.
She also noted that they'd printed out the first half of the August 20th request for the Cithy Hall homeless "crime wave" and it was $6.75. I again requested she subtract $1 from the $28.25 cash of mine they still had. She refused, saying it was a "different request."
On the two occasions I visited the SCPD, she wasn't there nor was anyone there to cover for her department.
When I went in to pick up the records she'd printed out (Aug 12-14, the $t6.75 bundle) and attempted to put down $1, the SCPD workers at the desk refused to take the money and retreated to a backroom because I was making an audio recording to document what was going on. I waited 10-15 minutes with Andrew, a witness, and then left.
I've filed a complaint with Husome's superior about her behavior as well as my concern about the behavior of the clerks at the SCPD window (going on strike when I pulled out a tape recorder). No response.
But then, perhaps that's understandable. Husome's supervisor is none other than Deputy Chief Kevin Vogel, the cost-conscious police official who saved the department money by investigating himself and giving himself a clean bill of health in the political infiltration and spying case of 1 1/2 years ago. [See "Investigation Reveals More SCPD Spying" at http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2006 /02/14/18023101.php]
I was aware that the courts were calling sheriffs, delaying the presentation of records, requiring a special viewing room, etc in order to slow down our access to Sleeping Ban court cases [See "Public Records, even just one? Only if you agree to pay!" at http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2007/06/30/18431926.php] But courts are exempted from the Public Records Act (though they are required to follow the California Rules of Court, and the SCPD is not.
Stay tuned for exciting updates! Please provide your own, if you have any.
On August 20th, I filed a Public Records Act requesting the "detailed incident summaries" of August 12-18 to determine just how many tickets and citations were issued for the alleged vandalism, bathroom littering, drug use, public sex, etc. etc. alleged by Friend in the Sentinel story. ["Homeless camp-in booted from lawn in front of Santa Cruz City Hall" http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/archive/2007/August/19/local/stories/03local.htm]
Indymedia covered the story somewhat differently: ["Ongoing Protest Against the Santa Cruz Sleeping Ban" at http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2007/08/16/18440985.php]
For some criticism of the Sentinel coverage see "Sleep Ban Fighters Regroup after Saturday Morning Police Raid" at http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2007/08/18/ 18441394.php
The preliminary answer Trisha provided was that NO TICKETS were issued at City Hall during that week for anything other than sleeping, 2 on Monday August 13, 4 on Saturday August 18.
I wanted to go further to find out what the nature of the complaints were and who made them. To uncover this, I requested the detailed incident recall traffic (between the 911 dispatch and the cops responding) for that period of time.
I just wanted to view it, not buy copies. Records supervisor Trisha Husome refused.
I requested electronic copies. Records supervisor Trish Husome insisted they were not available.
I requested to know how much it would cost. Husome said there was no way of knowing. I'd have to deposit $35 and then pay overage, depending on what was printed up.
I then asked her to print out half the request, so that I could get a sense of how many pages were coming out and what I was getting. She insisted that a new Public Records Act request be made.
I did this under protest.
I also made a second request for to view (no dice), or get an electronic copy (nope) of the detailed incident recall of August 26 (when Rotkin blocked our way into the ACLU meeting and called the cops because we wouldn't relinquish our signs). [See "Activists ask ACLU to help end sleeping ban" http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2007/08/26/18443532.php]
This time, somehow, she told me it would be $1. But she insisted I make another trip down to the police station to make the $1 deposit, and refused to take it out of the $35 deposit.
She also noted that they'd printed out the first half of the August 20th request for the Cithy Hall homeless "crime wave" and it was $6.75. I again requested she subtract $1 from the $28.25 cash of mine they still had. She refused, saying it was a "different request."
On the two occasions I visited the SCPD, she wasn't there nor was anyone there to cover for her department.
When I went in to pick up the records she'd printed out (Aug 12-14, the $t6.75 bundle) and attempted to put down $1, the SCPD workers at the desk refused to take the money and retreated to a backroom because I was making an audio recording to document what was going on. I waited 10-15 minutes with Andrew, a witness, and then left.
I've filed a complaint with Husome's superior about her behavior as well as my concern about the behavior of the clerks at the SCPD window (going on strike when I pulled out a tape recorder). No response.
But then, perhaps that's understandable. Husome's supervisor is none other than Deputy Chief Kevin Vogel, the cost-conscious police official who saved the department money by investigating himself and giving himself a clean bill of health in the political infiltration and spying case of 1 1/2 years ago. [See "Investigation Reveals More SCPD Spying" at http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2006 /02/14/18023101.php]
I was aware that the courts were calling sheriffs, delaying the presentation of records, requiring a special viewing room, etc in order to slow down our access to Sleeping Ban court cases [See "Public Records, even just one? Only if you agree to pay!" at http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2007/06/30/18431926.php] But courts are exempted from the Public Records Act (though they are required to follow the California Rules of Court, and the SCPD is not.
Stay tuned for exciting updates! Please provide your own, if you have any.
For more information:
http://www.huffsantacruz.org
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
Here's the exchange of e-mails between me and Trisha Husome in my quest to get a few records. Take a deep breath.
From: Robert Norse [mailto:rnorse3 [at] hotmail.com]
Sent: Monday, August 20, 2007 10:23 AM
To: Trisha Husome
Cc: squires [at] santacruzsentinel.com; Bob Patton; Bruce (!) Bratton; David Beauvais; General (!) DoeGun; Jhon Golder; Bernarrd Klitzner; Don Zimmerman; Donna Deiss; Tim Rumford (!); Thomas Leavitt; Osha Neumann; Ray Glock-Gruenich; Rico Thunder
Subject: Public Records Act Request re: Citations & Incident Recalls at City Hall 8-12 through 8-20 (TH)
Santa Cruz Police Department
Santa Cruz, CA
Attention: Tricia Husome
Dear Tricia,
Hi. I'm looking to view (a) copies of all citations issued at City Hall during the week of August 12, 2007 through August 20, 2007. & (b) copies of the Incident Recall of every complaint filed about City Hall during that period.
Please advise me when these documents will be available for viewing.
Please note that I am not requiring or requesting personal copies of each document, just access to them to view them. Once I do that, I may want copies of a select number.
Thanks,
Robert Norse
831-423-4833
Subject: RE: Public Records Act Request re: Citations & Incident Recalls at City Hall 8-12 through 8-20 (TH)
Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2007 20:25:11 -0700
From: THusome [at] ci.santa-cruz.ca.us
To: rnorse3 [at] hotmail.com
Mr. Norse,
I am writing in response to your Public Records Act request dated August 20, 2007 (below).
There were a total of six citations issued within the specified parameters. Five of the six citations require redacting prior to viewing. The cost of producing redacted copies of the five citations is $5.50.
There were a total of 32 calls for service within the specified parameters. Please provide clarification as to what information you are seeking with regard to incident recall. Summary information (i.e. date, time, description and location of response) can be produced at an approximate cost of $16.00. More detailed information can be produced at an approximate cost of $35.00. Public access to police department computer systems cannot be provided; therefore, only print access is possible.
Upon receipt of $5.50 we will commence production of the citation records. You may contact me, by phone or email, to schedule viewing of the one citation that does not require redacting.
Upon receipt of a deposit $16.00 we will commence production of summary incident recall information. Any additional amount due will be payable upon delivery. Any overage paid will be refunded.
Upon receipt of $35.00 we will commence production of detailed incident recall information. Any additional amount due will be payable upon delivery. Any overage paid will be refunded.
Trisha Husome
Records Manager
420-5874
thusome [at] ci.santa-cruz.ca.us
From: Robert Norse [mailto:rnorse3 [at] hotmail.com]
Sent: Monday, August 27, 2007 9:07 PM
To: Trisha Husome
Cc: Jhon Golder; lioness [at] got.net; David Beauvais; Don Zimmerman; David Meyberg; Linda Lemaster
Subject: RE: Public Records Act Request re: Citations & Incident Recalls at City Hall 8-12 through 8-20 (TH)
Tricia,
Thanks for your reply of August 27th.
Please clarify for me the following:
1. The policies and procedures governing redacting information from the six camping citations; i.e. what specific categories of information need to be redacting and according to what policy, procedure or general order?
2. The cost schedule you use to reach the $5.50 figure for the six tickets.
3. The cost schedule or method of determination for assessing costs you use re: the summary information for the incident recall for the 32 calls for service as requested.
4. What additional categories of information are available for the 32 calls for service, and the procedure you are using for assessing the additional cost.
5. I don't mind print access, but since i'm only looking to view the documents, not to obtain copies of them, I'm assuming you would not be charging for making copies. Is this correct?
Finally, I have an additional question for you, which I hope you can help me with. I am looking for the General Order governing the procedure for taking an individual to a magistrate prior to signing a citation if a person so requests.
Thanks for your help with these matters.
Robert Norse
Subject: RE: Public Records Act Request re: Citations & Incident Recalls at City Hall 8-12 through 8-20 (TH)
Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2007 21:48:57 -0700
From: THusome [at] ci.santa-cruz.ca.us
To: rnorse3 [at] hotmail.com
See my responses below. [Preceded by the "TH REPLIES:" for the convenience of the indymedia reader--RN]
From: Robert Norse [mailto:rnorse3 [at] hotmail.com]
Sent: Monday, August 27, 2007 9:07 PM
To: Trisha Husome
Cc: Jhon Golder; lioness [at] got.net; David Beauvais; Don Zimmerman; David Meyberg; Linda Lemaster
Subject: RE: Public Records Act Request re: Citations & Incident Recalls at City Hall 8-12 through 8-20 (TH)
Tricia,
Thanks for your reply of August 27th.
Please clarify for me the following:
1. The policies and procedures governing redacting information from the six camping citations; i.e. what specific categories of information need to be redacting and according to what policy, procedure or general order?
TH REPLIES: The Public Records Act entitles the public to specific information regarding arrestees. See section 6254(f)(1) of the California Government Code for specifics. Any information contained on the citations not subject to release under that section would be redacted.
2. The cost schedule you use to reach the $5.50 figure for the six tickets.
TH REPLIES: The cost per printed page is $.25. Each redacted document must be copied twice – once to “black out” the confidential information with a marker and one additional time to remove any chance of readability. Some citations include amendments. The cost of $5.50 is exact for these five citations.
3. The cost schedule or method of determination for assessing costs you use re: the summary information for the incident recall for the 32 calls for service as requested.
TH REPLIES: 32 copies at $.25 equals $8.00. I estimate the necessity for one redaction on each, requiring an additional 32 copies at $.25 each for a total of $16.00. The necessity for redaction is not known until printed.
4. What additional categories of information are available for the 32 calls for service, and the procedure you are using for assessing the additional cost.
TH REPLIES: Detail reports run an estimated 2 to 5 pages each. The actual number of pages is not known until printed. The information would not be well described as categories, as the information is unique to each call, but could include driver’s license and vehicle registration information, for example (to be redacted). For the purposes of this request, I used an estimate of 3 pages each at a rate, per copy, of $.25. 32 calls would equal $24.00. I then estimated that half of the pages would require redacting, adding an addition $12.00 for those copies. That brings the total estimate to $36.00, which I rounded down to $35.00.
5. I don't mind print access, but since i'm only looking to view the documents, not to obtain copies of them, I'm assuming you would not be charging for making copies. Is this correct?
TH REPLIES: The Public Records Act provides that the requestor shall bear the cost of producing a copy of a record. All charges outlined in my previous email would apply.
Finally, I have an additional question for you, which I hope you can help me with. I am looking for the General Order governing the procedure for taking an individual to a magistrate prior to signing a citation if a person so requests.
TH REPLIES: This information is contained within Section 420, provided to you previously.
Thanks for your help with these matters.
Robert Norse
From: Robert Norse [mailto:rnorse3 [at] hotmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2007 10:29 AM
To: Trisha Husome
Cc: lioness [at] got.net; davebeau [at] pacbell.net; Kevin Vogel; thomas leavitt; Jhon Golder
Subject: Public Records Act Request (TH)
Tricia:
Re: your demand that you would not proceed to begin copying the detailed incident recall summaries referenced in the previous e-mailed Public Records Act requests until I made yet another request:
Here is that request. Please make available in a timely fashion the first three days of the printed incident recalls involving City Hall calls for service (including naturally 911 calls)_ from August 12 through August 14. I am still interested in viewing the full printout, but as you are charging extensively for copying and redacting, I need to know how much this is likely to cost.
So please phone me when this is done and let me know how much the cost is, so I can estimate the probable cost of the rest of the job, since you are unable or unwilling to provide that answer at the outset. I regret that you were unwilling to proceed by phone based on my verbal authorization and the numerous written documents I've e-mailed and personally delivered. So here is the written authorization that you demanded.
I repeat my preference that this information be provided for viewing rather than given out as a copy. It is also my preference that this information be in electronic form. I repeat this for the record, not to annoy or discomfort you. In our phone call you sarcastically and wearily suggested that I'd asked for this kind of information "17 times". I'm sure this is not true. The fact that I comment on the department's failure to give the public access to public records as required by the Public Records Act in a timely and affordable manner should not be the basis for a hostile tone and delay in accepting a subsequent message.
When I asked by phone for an informal estimate for how long this would take--after the latest delay--you coldly replied you would then have an additional 10 days to reply. I was not trying to rush you, but simply to get some idea of how long you estimated it would take--given the delays that have already happened.
Your hostile manner today discourages me and would probably do so to anyone trying to get Public Records from your department. If your intention is not to delay, perhaps you or your superior can clarify why it is necessary to require still more "verification"? I believe these additional demands and your manner in doing so probably violate the spirit as well as the manner of the General Order governing conduct with the public, which I suppose can be researched if necessary.
I would ask your superior why, other than requiring me to fill out more paperwork, you rather rudely evaded and refused to accept an informal clarification backing up two phone messages, two prior Public Records Act request, and a hand-written instruction given yesterday at the Police Department itself. Because you and/or a member of your staff was not available when I came down to the station yesterday, this matter has been further delayed.
A few minutes ago I called back to clarify that I was still waiting for a response to the Public Records Act request I filed last month regarding police procedures around the "Take Me to a Magistrate" procedures required by the state Penal Code. Instead of taking the call, I was put on hold and referred to a message machine. I am concerned that this is less than professional behavior, even if my requests are not to your liking.
My request was to know the status of that part of the Public Records Act request in two phone messages I left you yesterday when you were not present for business during the usual office hours when I made a trip down to the police station to finish this business.
I would add that in the past month I have been more than pleased at the speed and detail of your responses to Public Record Act requests. I hope this morning's incident was an exception. I am sending a copy of this to Deputy-Chief Vogel, whose e-mail and phone extension you initially refused to give me.
Please understand that most people facing the police department bureaucracy are not as thick-skinned or persistent as I am. Hence I feel it necessary to take the time to document the extra time you have required me to take over what should be a fairly routine Public Records Act request.
Please also cite the General Order requiring you to insist on cash up front for Public Records Act request. This seems to require an unnecessary amount of extra time and energy from the public who are already paying a significant amount for police services.
I shall hope you will not insist on "ten days" to reply to this rather simple request.
Please call me as soon as practicable with the information regarding the cost of the printed detailed incident recalls as well as the Take Me to a Magistrate procedures.
I hope we can avoid this kind of unpleasantness in the future.
Sincerely,
Robert Norse
(831-423-4833)
cc: Kevin Vogel, Kate Wells
RE: Public Records Act for August 26 detailed incident recall (TH)
From: Robert Norse (rnorse3 [at] hotmail.com)
Sent: Sun 9/09/07 7:49 AM
To: Trisha Husome (thusome [at] ci.santa-cruz.ca.us)
Cc: Beggerbacker Becky Johnson (becky_johnson222 [at] hotmail.com); David Beauvais (davebeau [at] pacbell.net); Don Zimmerman (donzim [at] aol.com); lioness [at] got.net; Louis La Fortune (lafort [at] cruzio.com); Rico Thunder (thespoon [at] thespoon.com); Jhon Golder (jhondg [at] msn.com)
Santa Cruz Police Department
Santa Cruz, CA
Attention: Tricia Husome
Dear Tricia,
Hi. I'm looking to view a copy of the detailed incident recall of any SCPD activity at 100 Shaffer Rd. on August 26, 2007 between 2:30 PM and 5 PM on or around a public meeting of the American Civil Liberties Union.
I realize that in the past you have recently denied me the opportunity to view incident recalls (which are public records) without paying a significant amount of money for redacting and printing them out.
If you choose to repeat this refusal (which I would like you to clarify for documentation purposes), then please make me a copy of the detailed incident recall and have it available for pick-up at the police station within ten days.
I would also remind you I am waiting for a print-out of a prior set of incident recalls for which I have already paid you in advance.
Thanks for your help in this matter.
Robert Norse (423-4833)
Subject: RE: Public Records Act Request (TH)
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 11:42:05 -0700
From: THusome [at] ci.santa-cruz.ca.us
To: rnorse3 [at] hotmail.com
Mr. Norse,
Per your request dated September 6, 2007, below, I have printed incident recall records for the dates requested. With regard to view access to these records:
1. These records do not exist in a transmittable electronic format.
2. Some records require redaction, possible only in print form.
3. We cannot provide public access to Police Department computers.
4. View access can only be provided in print form with the print cost to be paid by you as the requestor.
The printing cost for this request is $6.75.
On September 5, 2007, you paid a deposit of $35.00 for incident recall records requested on August 20, 2007. You then opted to revise your request on September 6, 2007 (below). Please advise as to which of the following two options you prefer for payment on these requests:
Option 1 – Apply $35 deposit to September 6th request
We will apply your $35.00 deposit paid for your August 20th request to your September 6th.request. We will retain $6.75 for the copying cost incurred for the September 6th request and will make arrangements with City Finance to refund the overage of $28.25 to you. We will make the documents pertinent to your September 6th request available for pick-up at our front counter. This will complete compliance with your September 6th request.
Option 2 – Apply $35 deposit to August 20th request
We will apply your $35.00 deposit paid for your August 20th request to your August 20th request. We will print all additional incident recall records (additional to those listed in the September 6th request), as shown in the August 20th request. We will then determine final cost.
If the final cost exceeds $35.00 we will advise you of the additional amount due and will, upon receipt of the additional amount, will make all documents pertinent to your August 20th request available for pick-up at our front counter. This will complete compliance with your August 20th request.
If the final cost falls below $35.00 we will make arrangements with City Finance to refund the overage to you. We will make all documents pertinent to your August 20th request available for pick-up at our front counter. This will complete compliance with your August 20th request.
Please advise as to whether you wish for me to proceed with Option 1 or Option 2 for payment.
Trisha Husome
Records Manager
From: Robert Norse [mailto:rnorse3 [at] hotmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2007 2:06 PM
To: Trisha Husome
Cc: lioness [at] got.net; Kevin Vogel; Robert Aaronson
Subject: Public Records Available for Pickup? (TH)
Tricia:
Thanks for the notification.
Please have available for pick-up as soon as possible the incident recall records requested on August 20th as well as the one made on September 9th. I understand this will involve a cost of $7.75 ($6.75 for the August 20th request; $1 for the September 9th request). Since you have $35 of mine in your possession, this should present no problem.
In my request, I asked you contact me by phone, which you declined to do. I request again that you confirm by phone that these documents are available for pickup without further deposit or delay.
Also please advise me--if you can estimate-- the number of pages remaining in the rest of the requested detailed incident on August 20th (i.e. from August 15-18). Once, I view the records you have printed out (August 12-14), I'll advise you as to what to do about the remainder of the request.
As you know, I have two Public Records Act requests outstanding. One made on August 20th requesting to view detailed incident recalls from August 12 through August 18 at City Hall; another made on September 9th requesting to view any detailed incident recall available from 100 Shaffer Rd. during the afternoon.
I am a bit puzzled by your recent e-mail regarding the second request to the effect that it was ready, but you would not proceed to print it out until I deposited $1. You already have $35 of my money.
'
Re: the August 20 PRA request. At your insistence, I deposited money prior to its completion by personally visiting the police station on September 5th. At that time you were not available, even though it was during regular business hours. You had not assigned a staff member to deal with the situation.
At that time I made two phone and one written request in person at your counter that you print out the first few days of the detailed incident recall summary. The staff person at the window indicated no objection to this procedure. Yet when I contacted you later, you refused to do this until you received another e-mail reminding you of the public PRA request, which, under protest, I clarified by e-mail, further delaying action on this time-sensitive request.
It has taken you a total of 23 days to partially honor the August 20th Public Records Act request.
In your detailed "option summary" below, you failed to clarify whether print-outs for both the August 20th and September 9th requests will be available nso they can be picked up at the same time. Will both these copies be available today for pick up?
To the untrained eye, it might seem you are intentionally and unnecessarily requiring additional trips to the police station to view Public Records (actually, to pay for Public Records that should be available free of charge to the community you serve).
Since one of these requests also involves the credibility of public statements by police officers, I find myself wondering about the motivation of your behavior.
As a journalist and radio broadcaster, I find the older the information becomes, the less helpful in correcting misinformation or incomplete information from official sources. The effect of your delay is to deny the community information which would aid in assessing the credibility of Zach Friend's pronouncements on the homeless protest at City Hall.
I have already sent one complaint to your superior, whose contact number and e-mail, after an initial refusal, you agreed to give me.
I am sending this letter to Deputy-Chief Vogel as a follow-up on my prior complaint of September 6th as well as a copy to Police Auditor Bob Arenson.
Please let me know, preferibly by phone, as to whether these records are available for pick-up today or whether there will be further delay.
Sincerely,
Robert Norse
(423-4833)
cc: Kevin Vogel, Bob Arenson, Kate Wells
From: Trisha Husome
Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2007 5:14 PM
To: 'Robert Norse'
Subject: RE: Public Records Available for Pickup? (TH)
Mr. Norse.
Much of the information that you have provided in recent phone messages, notes and emails as to your wishes has been contradictory and unclear. I will continue to do my best to gain and offer clarification but written communication will serve us best in that regard.
The August 20th request asks for documents from 8/12 to 8/20 at 809 Center Street. The necessary deposit was $35.00 and was paid on September 5th, after which your request was modified on September 6th. You If you wish me to apply the $35.00 deposit to the full August 20th request, I will do so in the manner described in Option 2 of my email sent at 11:42am today (email attached).
The September 6th request asks for documents from 8/12 to 8/14 at 809 Center Street.
If you wish me to apply the $35.00 deposit to this request, I will do so as described in Option 1 of my email sent at 11:42am today (email attached).
The September 9th request asks for a document from 8/26 at 100 Shaffer Road. If you wish me to proceed with this request, please pay $1.00 in advance as requested in my email sent today at 12:12pm (email attached).
Estimates requested below were provided in my email sent 8/27at 9:49pm (email attached).
Trisha Husome
Records Manager
Another Clarification of an Overdue Public Records Act Request (TH)
From: Robert Norse (rnorse3 [at] hotmail.com)
Sent: Fri 9/14/07 9:46 AM
To: Trisha Husome (thusome [at] ci.santa-cruz.ca.us)
Cc: Bob Arenson (policeauditor [at] ci.santa-cruz.ca.us); Kevin Vogel (kvogel [at] ci.santa-cruz.ca.us); lioness [at] got.ne
Tricia:
1. Apply the $6.75 of the $35 deposit to the modified August 20th request for Aug 12-14 records, which you said in your e-mail you've already printed out.
2. Apply an additional $1 of the $35 to the September 9th request, which I expect you will print out. Have them also ready for pick-up at the same time as the August 12-14 records.
3. Phone me at 423-4833 to let me know these records are available for pick-up, as I requested in yesterday's e-mail. (E-mail if you find you are unable or unwilling to phone.)5.
4. Retain the remainder of the deposit. It will most probably be used for the remainder of the August 20th request (August 15-18)--after I've viewed the Aug 12-14 and August 26 records.
5. When I read the records at the station, I will either (a) reclaim the remainder of my deposit, or more likely (b) ask that you complete the records request by printing out the detailed incident recalls of August 15-18.
6. Hopefully you'll be able to print out the remainder of the request while I'm there, to avoid yet another delay.
If this is not clear or you object to it, please inform me immediately.
Thanks,
Robert Norse
(423-4833)
From: Trisha Husome
Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2007 9:15 AM
To: 'rnorse3 [at] hotmail.com'
Subject: FW: Public Records Available for Pickup? (TH)
Mr. Norse,
I have not yet received clarification from you as to whether you wish me to proceed with Option 1 or Option 2 for application of your $35.00 deposit paid on 09/05/07 for records regarding 809 Center Street. Please let me know by 5:00pm on Friday, September 21, 2007, whether you wish me to apply the $35.00 to your full request, submitted 08/20/07 (records for 08/12/07 – 08/20/07: Payment Option 2) or to your modified request, submitted 09/06/07 (records 08/12/07 – 08/14/07: Payment Option 1).
If I do not receive a response from you by 5:00pm on Friday, September 21, 2007, I will proceed with Option 2 Option 1, applying your $35.00 deposit to your modified request of September 6, 2007, requesting that City Finance refund the balance to you, placing the requested documents for 8/12/07 – 8/14/07 at the front desk for pick-up and sending you email notification that I have done so. Refunds take an average of fourteen days to process. Upon receipt of your refund check I will place the check at our front desk for pick-up and will send you email notification that I have done so. If you prefer that the check be mailed to you, please provide me with a mailing address.
Trisha Husome
Records Manager
Santa Cruz PD
Subject: FW: Public Records Available for Pickup? (TH)
Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2007 10:11:28 -0700
From: THusome [at] ci.santa-cruz.ca.us
To: rnorse3 [at] hotmail.com
Correction: In my email below I indicated, in the bottom paragraph, that I would proceed with Option 2 after 5:00pm on Friday. It is actually Option 1.
From: Robert Norse [mailto:rnorse3 [at] hotmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2007 4:00 PM
To: Trisha Husome
Cc: Tony Madrigal; Shanna McCord; lioness [at] got.net; Kevin Vogel; Robert Aaronson
Subject: 5th E-Mail Seeking Overdue Public Records Act Request (TH)
Tricia:
On Friday morning I requested that you have available for pick up two Public Records Act request. [see copy of e-mail attached below]. You did not respond to this e-mail either by phone as I requested or in e-mail form.
The first was the overdue Public Records Act request (of August 20th, clarified September 6th) seeking a printout of the detailed incident recalls of August 12-14 at City Hall at a cost of $6.75.
The second was a PRA request (of September 9th) seeking detailed incident recall of August 26 at 100 Shaffer Rd. costing $1.
Since I have deposited $35 with you, you have more than enough money to cover both these costs.
Please have both these print-out's available at the police station window by 9 AM tomorrow.
Please hold the balance of my deposit until I view the PRAs myself (which you have not up to now allowed me to do), so I can determine if I want you to continue with the rest of the request (seeking a printout of the detailed incident recalls of August 15-18 at City Hall).
It is, as I've said in my last two e-mails, extremely likely I will want to view the rest of the August 20th PRA request. I refuse to waste my time and fuel cost to come make a second deposit when you already have $35 out of which I've authorized you to make the appropriate deduction.
Again, This is an unncessary waste of the public's time and money here. I have notified you in numerous e-mails and phone calls that I'd likely require additional printouts covering August 15-18 once I view what you've already done. You have the funds in your possession now.
Your continued delays in producing the documents I've requested are causing needless expense and inhibiting our ability to get on with our respective work.
If this is unacceptable to you, please co-ordinate with your supervisor to schedule an appointment for next week where we can meet to resolve this matter as it has become unreasonable.
I would remind you that the Public Records Act requires you to justify withholdi ng any records. Your burden is to demonstrate "that the record in question is exempt under express provisions of this chapter or that on the facts of the particular case the public interest served by not making the record public clearly outweighs the public interest served by disclosure of the record" and that "...the burden of demonstrating a need for disclosure is upon the agency claiming the right to withhold the information."
Your repeated delays on this matter constitute de facto denial of access to public records. Raising additional conditions, ignoring e-mails, refusing to return phone calls, and declining to conclude this business in a timely manner are arguably illegal as well as unprofessional behavior.
When I visited the main police station yesterday, I was informed that you were not in for the day and that no one was covering your position in the Records Department. No records were available at that time. You also declined to return a phone call.
I still expect that the requested print-outs will be available tomorrow morning. and that you will call me by close of business today.
Robert Norse
(423-4833)
Subject: RE: 5th E-Mail Seeking Overdue Public Records Act Request (TH)
Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2007 16:37:51 -0700
From: THusome [at] ci.santa-cruz.ca.us
To: rnorse3 [at] hotmail.com
Mr. Norse,
I am willing to make the following compromise with regard to your request for documents related to 809 Center Street.
1. I have placed the September 6th documents at the front desk for pick-up. These are the documents for which a charge of $6.75 has been determined and will be applied to your $35.00 deposit.
2. After picking up the September 6th documents, you must advise me as to whether or not we are to proceed with printing the entire remainder of your August 20th request, for which the full $35.00 was deposited. Please understand that we will not hold these funds to be applied to any additional portion(s) of your August 20th request. If you do not advise me by 5:00pm on Friday, September 21, 2007, as to whether or not we are to proceed with the entire remainder of your August 20th request, I will contact City Finance to refund the overage to you as described in my email sent earlier today.
The $35.00 deposit was paid for a specific request regarding 809 Center Street. We will not hold this deposit, or any future deposit from you, to run an ongoing ‘tab’ to be applied to continuing portions of requests nor to be applied to future unrelated requests. Each request is a separate transaction and will be handled as such.
If you wish for me to proceed with your September 9th request, you must pay the required deposit of $1.00. Any future requests submitted by you will also be handled as separate transactions.
Trisha Husome
Records Manager
Still Missing Public Records Act Request Document and Other Concerns (TH)
From: Robert Norse (rnorse3 [at] hotmail.com)
Sent: Fri 9/21/07 10:07 AM
To: Trisha Husome (thusome [at] ci.santa-cruz.ca.us)
Cc: lioness [at] got.net; Bob Arenson (policeauditor [at] ci.santa-cruz.ca.us); Kevin Vogel (kvogel [at] ci.santa-cruz.ca.us); Jennifer (Sentinel) Squires (jsquires [at] santacruzsentinel.com); Shanna McCord (smccord [at] santacruzsentinel.com); Santa Cruz Indymedia (scimc [at] indymedia.org); halfmoon [at] communitytv.org; Tony Madrigal (tmadrigal [at] ci.santa-cruz.ca.us); Don Zimmerman (donzim [at] aol.com); David Beauvais (davebeau [at] pacbell.net)
Tricia:
On Wednesday I picked up the first half of the August 20th Public Records Act request and noted that you'd taken $6.75 for print-out's from the $35 i left you several weeks ago as a deposit. Thank you for making these records available.
At the present time, I am not requesting access to the detailed incident recall from the second half of the request (August 15-18), having had (finally) an opportunity to view the documents previously withheld. BEFORE REFUNDING THE REMAINDER OF THE MONEY DEPOSITED, PLEASE SET ASIDE $1 AND MAKE AVAILABLE THE AUGUST 26 DETAILED INCIDENT RECALL as I've repeatedly requested in prior e-mails.
Since the initial request was made on August 20th, your provision of records was done twenty days later, which, of course, is non-compliant with the Public Records Act, especially since the time and labor involved is relatively minor. Your extensive e-mailing demanding advance deposit, additional trips to the police station, making a second request, were all unnecessary and dilatory actions
You also declined to provide the records in electronic form or to make them available for viewing at no cost. This procedure penalizes the public, violates the spirit if not the letter of the law, and discourages the public from making such requests.
A question for you: do you have a waiver policy for those without funds who want to view public records?
PLEASE FORWARD ME IN ELECTRONIC FORM ANY GENERAL ORDERS OR OTHER POLICE POLICIES YOU MAY HAVE CONCERNING THIS SITUATION. IF SUCH IS NOT AVAILABLE, PLEASE HAVE A COPY AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE MAIN DESK AND INFORM ME BY PHONE WHEN THIS IS AVAILABLE. IN THE EVENT THAT YOU FIND YOURSELF UNABLE TO CALL, PLEASE E-MAIL.
You also failed to make available the September 9th Public Record Act request for the August 26 detailed incident recall. You had adequate funds ($#28.25) in your possession to do so. Yet you insisted on further delay.
TO RECAPITULATE, PLEASE PRINT UP THE AUGUST 26TH DOCUMENT AND HAVE IT AVAILABLE FOR ME BY THE END OF THE BUSINESS DAY TODAY. Since the document involves only a page or two, that should be no problem.
I also note that you previously claimed you couldn't accurately give the public an estimate of how much it would cost to receive any particular incident recall request. It seems that with this request, that was not the case, doesn't it? Such a demand puts an unnecessary burden on the public (along with your demand that money be provided up front) and discourages public records act requests. PLEASE ADVISE ME IF YOU ARE GOING TO CONTINUE THIS POLICY so I can know whether to forward my concerns to other oversight agencies concerned with such behavior such as the grand jury.
I actually attempted to accomodate your unnecessary and dilatory demand that I leave an additional $1 for the record mentioned above at the main desk when I picked up the earlier request on Wednesday.
At that time, I was informed that you were again gone for the day (with apparently no substitute person covering your position). The desk also refused to accept the $1 because I was making an audio recording of the interaction for my own records, as the best evidence in case there were further difficulties, and as is the public's right to record conversations, particularly with government officials where there is no expectation of privacy. A companion with me witnessed this situation and can testify that I attempted to leave you the $1 you requested (but, in fact, already have in your possession in the form of $28.25).
In response, the individuals on the desk at that time left their posts, the male officer stating that he would be sending his supervisor. After waiting ten to fifteen minutes with no one at the counter, I left. I mention this procedure to show you that I attempted to deposit $1 per your dilatory demand, but your department declined to receive it.
I hope that future visits by mermbers of the public do not have to suffer this kind of delay and disrespect. For the record, such attempts to limit public documentation of your department's behavior are unlawful, regardless of whatever signs you may post in the lobby.
You are not responsible for the behavior of the staff up front, but I mention it in case the issue should ever arise in dealings you have with the public. Refusing to deal with a member of the public because she or he is making an audio recording is improper, one might even say, intimidating behavior (and particularly hypocritical considering the police department's video surveillance of its own lobby).
Please confirm that the August 26th document is available, by noon if possible.
Thanks for your attention.
Robert Norse
(423-4833)
From: Robert Norse [mailto:rnorse3 [at] hotmail.com]
Sent: Monday, August 20, 2007 10:23 AM
To: Trisha Husome
Cc: squires [at] santacruzsentinel.com; Bob Patton; Bruce (!) Bratton; David Beauvais; General (!) DoeGun; Jhon Golder; Bernarrd Klitzner; Don Zimmerman; Donna Deiss; Tim Rumford (!); Thomas Leavitt; Osha Neumann; Ray Glock-Gruenich; Rico Thunder
Subject: Public Records Act Request re: Citations & Incident Recalls at City Hall 8-12 through 8-20 (TH)
Santa Cruz Police Department
Santa Cruz, CA
Attention: Tricia Husome
Dear Tricia,
Hi. I'm looking to view (a) copies of all citations issued at City Hall during the week of August 12, 2007 through August 20, 2007. & (b) copies of the Incident Recall of every complaint filed about City Hall during that period.
Please advise me when these documents will be available for viewing.
Please note that I am not requiring or requesting personal copies of each document, just access to them to view them. Once I do that, I may want copies of a select number.
Thanks,
Robert Norse
831-423-4833
Subject: RE: Public Records Act Request re: Citations & Incident Recalls at City Hall 8-12 through 8-20 (TH)
Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2007 20:25:11 -0700
From: THusome [at] ci.santa-cruz.ca.us
To: rnorse3 [at] hotmail.com
Mr. Norse,
I am writing in response to your Public Records Act request dated August 20, 2007 (below).
There were a total of six citations issued within the specified parameters. Five of the six citations require redacting prior to viewing. The cost of producing redacted copies of the five citations is $5.50.
There were a total of 32 calls for service within the specified parameters. Please provide clarification as to what information you are seeking with regard to incident recall. Summary information (i.e. date, time, description and location of response) can be produced at an approximate cost of $16.00. More detailed information can be produced at an approximate cost of $35.00. Public access to police department computer systems cannot be provided; therefore, only print access is possible.
Upon receipt of $5.50 we will commence production of the citation records. You may contact me, by phone or email, to schedule viewing of the one citation that does not require redacting.
Upon receipt of a deposit $16.00 we will commence production of summary incident recall information. Any additional amount due will be payable upon delivery. Any overage paid will be refunded.
Upon receipt of $35.00 we will commence production of detailed incident recall information. Any additional amount due will be payable upon delivery. Any overage paid will be refunded.
Trisha Husome
Records Manager
420-5874
thusome [at] ci.santa-cruz.ca.us
From: Robert Norse [mailto:rnorse3 [at] hotmail.com]
Sent: Monday, August 27, 2007 9:07 PM
To: Trisha Husome
Cc: Jhon Golder; lioness [at] got.net; David Beauvais; Don Zimmerman; David Meyberg; Linda Lemaster
Subject: RE: Public Records Act Request re: Citations & Incident Recalls at City Hall 8-12 through 8-20 (TH)
Tricia,
Thanks for your reply of August 27th.
Please clarify for me the following:
1. The policies and procedures governing redacting information from the six camping citations; i.e. what specific categories of information need to be redacting and according to what policy, procedure or general order?
2. The cost schedule you use to reach the $5.50 figure for the six tickets.
3. The cost schedule or method of determination for assessing costs you use re: the summary information for the incident recall for the 32 calls for service as requested.
4. What additional categories of information are available for the 32 calls for service, and the procedure you are using for assessing the additional cost.
5. I don't mind print access, but since i'm only looking to view the documents, not to obtain copies of them, I'm assuming you would not be charging for making copies. Is this correct?
Finally, I have an additional question for you, which I hope you can help me with. I am looking for the General Order governing the procedure for taking an individual to a magistrate prior to signing a citation if a person so requests.
Thanks for your help with these matters.
Robert Norse
Subject: RE: Public Records Act Request re: Citations & Incident Recalls at City Hall 8-12 through 8-20 (TH)
Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2007 21:48:57 -0700
From: THusome [at] ci.santa-cruz.ca.us
To: rnorse3 [at] hotmail.com
See my responses below. [Preceded by the "TH REPLIES:" for the convenience of the indymedia reader--RN]
From: Robert Norse [mailto:rnorse3 [at] hotmail.com]
Sent: Monday, August 27, 2007 9:07 PM
To: Trisha Husome
Cc: Jhon Golder; lioness [at] got.net; David Beauvais; Don Zimmerman; David Meyberg; Linda Lemaster
Subject: RE: Public Records Act Request re: Citations & Incident Recalls at City Hall 8-12 through 8-20 (TH)
Tricia,
Thanks for your reply of August 27th.
Please clarify for me the following:
1. The policies and procedures governing redacting information from the six camping citations; i.e. what specific categories of information need to be redacting and according to what policy, procedure or general order?
TH REPLIES: The Public Records Act entitles the public to specific information regarding arrestees. See section 6254(f)(1) of the California Government Code for specifics. Any information contained on the citations not subject to release under that section would be redacted.
2. The cost schedule you use to reach the $5.50 figure for the six tickets.
TH REPLIES: The cost per printed page is $.25. Each redacted document must be copied twice – once to “black out” the confidential information with a marker and one additional time to remove any chance of readability. Some citations include amendments. The cost of $5.50 is exact for these five citations.
3. The cost schedule or method of determination for assessing costs you use re: the summary information for the incident recall for the 32 calls for service as requested.
TH REPLIES: 32 copies at $.25 equals $8.00. I estimate the necessity for one redaction on each, requiring an additional 32 copies at $.25 each for a total of $16.00. The necessity for redaction is not known until printed.
4. What additional categories of information are available for the 32 calls for service, and the procedure you are using for assessing the additional cost.
TH REPLIES: Detail reports run an estimated 2 to 5 pages each. The actual number of pages is not known until printed. The information would not be well described as categories, as the information is unique to each call, but could include driver’s license and vehicle registration information, for example (to be redacted). For the purposes of this request, I used an estimate of 3 pages each at a rate, per copy, of $.25. 32 calls would equal $24.00. I then estimated that half of the pages would require redacting, adding an addition $12.00 for those copies. That brings the total estimate to $36.00, which I rounded down to $35.00.
5. I don't mind print access, but since i'm only looking to view the documents, not to obtain copies of them, I'm assuming you would not be charging for making copies. Is this correct?
TH REPLIES: The Public Records Act provides that the requestor shall bear the cost of producing a copy of a record. All charges outlined in my previous email would apply.
Finally, I have an additional question for you, which I hope you can help me with. I am looking for the General Order governing the procedure for taking an individual to a magistrate prior to signing a citation if a person so requests.
TH REPLIES: This information is contained within Section 420, provided to you previously.
Thanks for your help with these matters.
Robert Norse
From: Robert Norse [mailto:rnorse3 [at] hotmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2007 10:29 AM
To: Trisha Husome
Cc: lioness [at] got.net; davebeau [at] pacbell.net; Kevin Vogel; thomas leavitt; Jhon Golder
Subject: Public Records Act Request (TH)
Tricia:
Re: your demand that you would not proceed to begin copying the detailed incident recall summaries referenced in the previous e-mailed Public Records Act requests until I made yet another request:
Here is that request. Please make available in a timely fashion the first three days of the printed incident recalls involving City Hall calls for service (including naturally 911 calls)_ from August 12 through August 14. I am still interested in viewing the full printout, but as you are charging extensively for copying and redacting, I need to know how much this is likely to cost.
So please phone me when this is done and let me know how much the cost is, so I can estimate the probable cost of the rest of the job, since you are unable or unwilling to provide that answer at the outset. I regret that you were unwilling to proceed by phone based on my verbal authorization and the numerous written documents I've e-mailed and personally delivered. So here is the written authorization that you demanded.
I repeat my preference that this information be provided for viewing rather than given out as a copy. It is also my preference that this information be in electronic form. I repeat this for the record, not to annoy or discomfort you. In our phone call you sarcastically and wearily suggested that I'd asked for this kind of information "17 times". I'm sure this is not true. The fact that I comment on the department's failure to give the public access to public records as required by the Public Records Act in a timely and affordable manner should not be the basis for a hostile tone and delay in accepting a subsequent message.
When I asked by phone for an informal estimate for how long this would take--after the latest delay--you coldly replied you would then have an additional 10 days to reply. I was not trying to rush you, but simply to get some idea of how long you estimated it would take--given the delays that have already happened.
Your hostile manner today discourages me and would probably do so to anyone trying to get Public Records from your department. If your intention is not to delay, perhaps you or your superior can clarify why it is necessary to require still more "verification"? I believe these additional demands and your manner in doing so probably violate the spirit as well as the manner of the General Order governing conduct with the public, which I suppose can be researched if necessary.
I would ask your superior why, other than requiring me to fill out more paperwork, you rather rudely evaded and refused to accept an informal clarification backing up two phone messages, two prior Public Records Act request, and a hand-written instruction given yesterday at the Police Department itself. Because you and/or a member of your staff was not available when I came down to the station yesterday, this matter has been further delayed.
A few minutes ago I called back to clarify that I was still waiting for a response to the Public Records Act request I filed last month regarding police procedures around the "Take Me to a Magistrate" procedures required by the state Penal Code. Instead of taking the call, I was put on hold and referred to a message machine. I am concerned that this is less than professional behavior, even if my requests are not to your liking.
My request was to know the status of that part of the Public Records Act request in two phone messages I left you yesterday when you were not present for business during the usual office hours when I made a trip down to the police station to finish this business.
I would add that in the past month I have been more than pleased at the speed and detail of your responses to Public Record Act requests. I hope this morning's incident was an exception. I am sending a copy of this to Deputy-Chief Vogel, whose e-mail and phone extension you initially refused to give me.
Please understand that most people facing the police department bureaucracy are not as thick-skinned or persistent as I am. Hence I feel it necessary to take the time to document the extra time you have required me to take over what should be a fairly routine Public Records Act request.
Please also cite the General Order requiring you to insist on cash up front for Public Records Act request. This seems to require an unnecessary amount of extra time and energy from the public who are already paying a significant amount for police services.
I shall hope you will not insist on "ten days" to reply to this rather simple request.
Please call me as soon as practicable with the information regarding the cost of the printed detailed incident recalls as well as the Take Me to a Magistrate procedures.
I hope we can avoid this kind of unpleasantness in the future.
Sincerely,
Robert Norse
(831-423-4833)
cc: Kevin Vogel, Kate Wells
RE: Public Records Act for August 26 detailed incident recall (TH)
From: Robert Norse (rnorse3 [at] hotmail.com)
Sent: Sun 9/09/07 7:49 AM
To: Trisha Husome (thusome [at] ci.santa-cruz.ca.us)
Cc: Beggerbacker Becky Johnson (becky_johnson222 [at] hotmail.com); David Beauvais (davebeau [at] pacbell.net); Don Zimmerman (donzim [at] aol.com); lioness [at] got.net; Louis La Fortune (lafort [at] cruzio.com); Rico Thunder (thespoon [at] thespoon.com); Jhon Golder (jhondg [at] msn.com)
Santa Cruz Police Department
Santa Cruz, CA
Attention: Tricia Husome
Dear Tricia,
Hi. I'm looking to view a copy of the detailed incident recall of any SCPD activity at 100 Shaffer Rd. on August 26, 2007 between 2:30 PM and 5 PM on or around a public meeting of the American Civil Liberties Union.
I realize that in the past you have recently denied me the opportunity to view incident recalls (which are public records) without paying a significant amount of money for redacting and printing them out.
If you choose to repeat this refusal (which I would like you to clarify for documentation purposes), then please make me a copy of the detailed incident recall and have it available for pick-up at the police station within ten days.
I would also remind you I am waiting for a print-out of a prior set of incident recalls for which I have already paid you in advance.
Thanks for your help in this matter.
Robert Norse (423-4833)
Subject: RE: Public Records Act Request (TH)
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 11:42:05 -0700
From: THusome [at] ci.santa-cruz.ca.us
To: rnorse3 [at] hotmail.com
Mr. Norse,
Per your request dated September 6, 2007, below, I have printed incident recall records for the dates requested. With regard to view access to these records:
1. These records do not exist in a transmittable electronic format.
2. Some records require redaction, possible only in print form.
3. We cannot provide public access to Police Department computers.
4. View access can only be provided in print form with the print cost to be paid by you as the requestor.
The printing cost for this request is $6.75.
On September 5, 2007, you paid a deposit of $35.00 for incident recall records requested on August 20, 2007. You then opted to revise your request on September 6, 2007 (below). Please advise as to which of the following two options you prefer for payment on these requests:
Option 1 – Apply $35 deposit to September 6th request
We will apply your $35.00 deposit paid for your August 20th request to your September 6th.request. We will retain $6.75 for the copying cost incurred for the September 6th request and will make arrangements with City Finance to refund the overage of $28.25 to you. We will make the documents pertinent to your September 6th request available for pick-up at our front counter. This will complete compliance with your September 6th request.
Option 2 – Apply $35 deposit to August 20th request
We will apply your $35.00 deposit paid for your August 20th request to your August 20th request. We will print all additional incident recall records (additional to those listed in the September 6th request), as shown in the August 20th request. We will then determine final cost.
If the final cost exceeds $35.00 we will advise you of the additional amount due and will, upon receipt of the additional amount, will make all documents pertinent to your August 20th request available for pick-up at our front counter. This will complete compliance with your August 20th request.
If the final cost falls below $35.00 we will make arrangements with City Finance to refund the overage to you. We will make all documents pertinent to your August 20th request available for pick-up at our front counter. This will complete compliance with your August 20th request.
Please advise as to whether you wish for me to proceed with Option 1 or Option 2 for payment.
Trisha Husome
Records Manager
From: Robert Norse [mailto:rnorse3 [at] hotmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2007 2:06 PM
To: Trisha Husome
Cc: lioness [at] got.net; Kevin Vogel; Robert Aaronson
Subject: Public Records Available for Pickup? (TH)
Tricia:
Thanks for the notification.
Please have available for pick-up as soon as possible the incident recall records requested on August 20th as well as the one made on September 9th. I understand this will involve a cost of $7.75 ($6.75 for the August 20th request; $1 for the September 9th request). Since you have $35 of mine in your possession, this should present no problem.
In my request, I asked you contact me by phone, which you declined to do. I request again that you confirm by phone that these documents are available for pickup without further deposit or delay.
Also please advise me--if you can estimate-- the number of pages remaining in the rest of the requested detailed incident on August 20th (i.e. from August 15-18). Once, I view the records you have printed out (August 12-14), I'll advise you as to what to do about the remainder of the request.
As you know, I have two Public Records Act requests outstanding. One made on August 20th requesting to view detailed incident recalls from August 12 through August 18 at City Hall; another made on September 9th requesting to view any detailed incident recall available from 100 Shaffer Rd. during the afternoon.
I am a bit puzzled by your recent e-mail regarding the second request to the effect that it was ready, but you would not proceed to print it out until I deposited $1. You already have $35 of my money.
'
Re: the August 20 PRA request. At your insistence, I deposited money prior to its completion by personally visiting the police station on September 5th. At that time you were not available, even though it was during regular business hours. You had not assigned a staff member to deal with the situation.
At that time I made two phone and one written request in person at your counter that you print out the first few days of the detailed incident recall summary. The staff person at the window indicated no objection to this procedure. Yet when I contacted you later, you refused to do this until you received another e-mail reminding you of the public PRA request, which, under protest, I clarified by e-mail, further delaying action on this time-sensitive request.
It has taken you a total of 23 days to partially honor the August 20th Public Records Act request.
In your detailed "option summary" below, you failed to clarify whether print-outs for both the August 20th and September 9th requests will be available nso they can be picked up at the same time. Will both these copies be available today for pick up?
To the untrained eye, it might seem you are intentionally and unnecessarily requiring additional trips to the police station to view Public Records (actually, to pay for Public Records that should be available free of charge to the community you serve).
Since one of these requests also involves the credibility of public statements by police officers, I find myself wondering about the motivation of your behavior.
As a journalist and radio broadcaster, I find the older the information becomes, the less helpful in correcting misinformation or incomplete information from official sources. The effect of your delay is to deny the community information which would aid in assessing the credibility of Zach Friend's pronouncements on the homeless protest at City Hall.
I have already sent one complaint to your superior, whose contact number and e-mail, after an initial refusal, you agreed to give me.
I am sending this letter to Deputy-Chief Vogel as a follow-up on my prior complaint of September 6th as well as a copy to Police Auditor Bob Arenson.
Please let me know, preferibly by phone, as to whether these records are available for pick-up today or whether there will be further delay.
Sincerely,
Robert Norse
(423-4833)
cc: Kevin Vogel, Bob Arenson, Kate Wells
From: Trisha Husome
Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2007 5:14 PM
To: 'Robert Norse'
Subject: RE: Public Records Available for Pickup? (TH)
Mr. Norse.
Much of the information that you have provided in recent phone messages, notes and emails as to your wishes has been contradictory and unclear. I will continue to do my best to gain and offer clarification but written communication will serve us best in that regard.
The August 20th request asks for documents from 8/12 to 8/20 at 809 Center Street. The necessary deposit was $35.00 and was paid on September 5th, after which your request was modified on September 6th. You If you wish me to apply the $35.00 deposit to the full August 20th request, I will do so in the manner described in Option 2 of my email sent at 11:42am today (email attached).
The September 6th request asks for documents from 8/12 to 8/14 at 809 Center Street.
If you wish me to apply the $35.00 deposit to this request, I will do so as described in Option 1 of my email sent at 11:42am today (email attached).
The September 9th request asks for a document from 8/26 at 100 Shaffer Road. If you wish me to proceed with this request, please pay $1.00 in advance as requested in my email sent today at 12:12pm (email attached).
Estimates requested below were provided in my email sent 8/27at 9:49pm (email attached).
Trisha Husome
Records Manager
Another Clarification of an Overdue Public Records Act Request (TH)
From: Robert Norse (rnorse3 [at] hotmail.com)
Sent: Fri 9/14/07 9:46 AM
To: Trisha Husome (thusome [at] ci.santa-cruz.ca.us)
Cc: Bob Arenson (policeauditor [at] ci.santa-cruz.ca.us); Kevin Vogel (kvogel [at] ci.santa-cruz.ca.us); lioness [at] got.ne
Tricia:
1. Apply the $6.75 of the $35 deposit to the modified August 20th request for Aug 12-14 records, which you said in your e-mail you've already printed out.
2. Apply an additional $1 of the $35 to the September 9th request, which I expect you will print out. Have them also ready for pick-up at the same time as the August 12-14 records.
3. Phone me at 423-4833 to let me know these records are available for pick-up, as I requested in yesterday's e-mail. (E-mail if you find you are unable or unwilling to phone.)5.
4. Retain the remainder of the deposit. It will most probably be used for the remainder of the August 20th request (August 15-18)--after I've viewed the Aug 12-14 and August 26 records.
5. When I read the records at the station, I will either (a) reclaim the remainder of my deposit, or more likely (b) ask that you complete the records request by printing out the detailed incident recalls of August 15-18.
6. Hopefully you'll be able to print out the remainder of the request while I'm there, to avoid yet another delay.
If this is not clear or you object to it, please inform me immediately.
Thanks,
Robert Norse
(423-4833)
From: Trisha Husome
Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2007 9:15 AM
To: 'rnorse3 [at] hotmail.com'
Subject: FW: Public Records Available for Pickup? (TH)
Mr. Norse,
I have not yet received clarification from you as to whether you wish me to proceed with Option 1 or Option 2 for application of your $35.00 deposit paid on 09/05/07 for records regarding 809 Center Street. Please let me know by 5:00pm on Friday, September 21, 2007, whether you wish me to apply the $35.00 to your full request, submitted 08/20/07 (records for 08/12/07 – 08/20/07: Payment Option 2) or to your modified request, submitted 09/06/07 (records 08/12/07 – 08/14/07: Payment Option 1).
If I do not receive a response from you by 5:00pm on Friday, September 21, 2007, I will proceed with Option 2 Option 1, applying your $35.00 deposit to your modified request of September 6, 2007, requesting that City Finance refund the balance to you, placing the requested documents for 8/12/07 – 8/14/07 at the front desk for pick-up and sending you email notification that I have done so. Refunds take an average of fourteen days to process. Upon receipt of your refund check I will place the check at our front desk for pick-up and will send you email notification that I have done so. If you prefer that the check be mailed to you, please provide me with a mailing address.
Trisha Husome
Records Manager
Santa Cruz PD
Subject: FW: Public Records Available for Pickup? (TH)
Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2007 10:11:28 -0700
From: THusome [at] ci.santa-cruz.ca.us
To: rnorse3 [at] hotmail.com
Correction: In my email below I indicated, in the bottom paragraph, that I would proceed with Option 2 after 5:00pm on Friday. It is actually Option 1.
From: Robert Norse [mailto:rnorse3 [at] hotmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2007 4:00 PM
To: Trisha Husome
Cc: Tony Madrigal; Shanna McCord; lioness [at] got.net; Kevin Vogel; Robert Aaronson
Subject: 5th E-Mail Seeking Overdue Public Records Act Request (TH)
Tricia:
On Friday morning I requested that you have available for pick up two Public Records Act request. [see copy of e-mail attached below]. You did not respond to this e-mail either by phone as I requested or in e-mail form.
The first was the overdue Public Records Act request (of August 20th, clarified September 6th) seeking a printout of the detailed incident recalls of August 12-14 at City Hall at a cost of $6.75.
The second was a PRA request (of September 9th) seeking detailed incident recall of August 26 at 100 Shaffer Rd. costing $1.
Since I have deposited $35 with you, you have more than enough money to cover both these costs.
Please have both these print-out's available at the police station window by 9 AM tomorrow.
Please hold the balance of my deposit until I view the PRAs myself (which you have not up to now allowed me to do), so I can determine if I want you to continue with the rest of the request (seeking a printout of the detailed incident recalls of August 15-18 at City Hall).
It is, as I've said in my last two e-mails, extremely likely I will want to view the rest of the August 20th PRA request. I refuse to waste my time and fuel cost to come make a second deposit when you already have $35 out of which I've authorized you to make the appropriate deduction.
Again, This is an unncessary waste of the public's time and money here. I have notified you in numerous e-mails and phone calls that I'd likely require additional printouts covering August 15-18 once I view what you've already done. You have the funds in your possession now.
Your continued delays in producing the documents I've requested are causing needless expense and inhibiting our ability to get on with our respective work.
If this is unacceptable to you, please co-ordinate with your supervisor to schedule an appointment for next week where we can meet to resolve this matter as it has become unreasonable.
I would remind you that the Public Records Act requires you to justify withholdi ng any records. Your burden is to demonstrate "that the record in question is exempt under express provisions of this chapter or that on the facts of the particular case the public interest served by not making the record public clearly outweighs the public interest served by disclosure of the record" and that "...the burden of demonstrating a need for disclosure is upon the agency claiming the right to withhold the information."
Your repeated delays on this matter constitute de facto denial of access to public records. Raising additional conditions, ignoring e-mails, refusing to return phone calls, and declining to conclude this business in a timely manner are arguably illegal as well as unprofessional behavior.
When I visited the main police station yesterday, I was informed that you were not in for the day and that no one was covering your position in the Records Department. No records were available at that time. You also declined to return a phone call.
I still expect that the requested print-outs will be available tomorrow morning. and that you will call me by close of business today.
Robert Norse
(423-4833)
Subject: RE: 5th E-Mail Seeking Overdue Public Records Act Request (TH)
Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2007 16:37:51 -0700
From: THusome [at] ci.santa-cruz.ca.us
To: rnorse3 [at] hotmail.com
Mr. Norse,
I am willing to make the following compromise with regard to your request for documents related to 809 Center Street.
1. I have placed the September 6th documents at the front desk for pick-up. These are the documents for which a charge of $6.75 has been determined and will be applied to your $35.00 deposit.
2. After picking up the September 6th documents, you must advise me as to whether or not we are to proceed with printing the entire remainder of your August 20th request, for which the full $35.00 was deposited. Please understand that we will not hold these funds to be applied to any additional portion(s) of your August 20th request. If you do not advise me by 5:00pm on Friday, September 21, 2007, as to whether or not we are to proceed with the entire remainder of your August 20th request, I will contact City Finance to refund the overage to you as described in my email sent earlier today.
The $35.00 deposit was paid for a specific request regarding 809 Center Street. We will not hold this deposit, or any future deposit from you, to run an ongoing ‘tab’ to be applied to continuing portions of requests nor to be applied to future unrelated requests. Each request is a separate transaction and will be handled as such.
If you wish for me to proceed with your September 9th request, you must pay the required deposit of $1.00. Any future requests submitted by you will also be handled as separate transactions.
Trisha Husome
Records Manager
Still Missing Public Records Act Request Document and Other Concerns (TH)
From: Robert Norse (rnorse3 [at] hotmail.com)
Sent: Fri 9/21/07 10:07 AM
To: Trisha Husome (thusome [at] ci.santa-cruz.ca.us)
Cc: lioness [at] got.net; Bob Arenson (policeauditor [at] ci.santa-cruz.ca.us); Kevin Vogel (kvogel [at] ci.santa-cruz.ca.us); Jennifer (Sentinel) Squires (jsquires [at] santacruzsentinel.com); Shanna McCord (smccord [at] santacruzsentinel.com); Santa Cruz Indymedia (scimc [at] indymedia.org); halfmoon [at] communitytv.org; Tony Madrigal (tmadrigal [at] ci.santa-cruz.ca.us); Don Zimmerman (donzim [at] aol.com); David Beauvais (davebeau [at] pacbell.net)
Tricia:
On Wednesday I picked up the first half of the August 20th Public Records Act request and noted that you'd taken $6.75 for print-out's from the $35 i left you several weeks ago as a deposit. Thank you for making these records available.
At the present time, I am not requesting access to the detailed incident recall from the second half of the request (August 15-18), having had (finally) an opportunity to view the documents previously withheld. BEFORE REFUNDING THE REMAINDER OF THE MONEY DEPOSITED, PLEASE SET ASIDE $1 AND MAKE AVAILABLE THE AUGUST 26 DETAILED INCIDENT RECALL as I've repeatedly requested in prior e-mails.
Since the initial request was made on August 20th, your provision of records was done twenty days later, which, of course, is non-compliant with the Public Records Act, especially since the time and labor involved is relatively minor. Your extensive e-mailing demanding advance deposit, additional trips to the police station, making a second request, were all unnecessary and dilatory actions
You also declined to provide the records in electronic form or to make them available for viewing at no cost. This procedure penalizes the public, violates the spirit if not the letter of the law, and discourages the public from making such requests.
A question for you: do you have a waiver policy for those without funds who want to view public records?
PLEASE FORWARD ME IN ELECTRONIC FORM ANY GENERAL ORDERS OR OTHER POLICE POLICIES YOU MAY HAVE CONCERNING THIS SITUATION. IF SUCH IS NOT AVAILABLE, PLEASE HAVE A COPY AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE MAIN DESK AND INFORM ME BY PHONE WHEN THIS IS AVAILABLE. IN THE EVENT THAT YOU FIND YOURSELF UNABLE TO CALL, PLEASE E-MAIL.
You also failed to make available the September 9th Public Record Act request for the August 26 detailed incident recall. You had adequate funds ($#28.25) in your possession to do so. Yet you insisted on further delay.
TO RECAPITULATE, PLEASE PRINT UP THE AUGUST 26TH DOCUMENT AND HAVE IT AVAILABLE FOR ME BY THE END OF THE BUSINESS DAY TODAY. Since the document involves only a page or two, that should be no problem.
I also note that you previously claimed you couldn't accurately give the public an estimate of how much it would cost to receive any particular incident recall request. It seems that with this request, that was not the case, doesn't it? Such a demand puts an unnecessary burden on the public (along with your demand that money be provided up front) and discourages public records act requests. PLEASE ADVISE ME IF YOU ARE GOING TO CONTINUE THIS POLICY so I can know whether to forward my concerns to other oversight agencies concerned with such behavior such as the grand jury.
I actually attempted to accomodate your unnecessary and dilatory demand that I leave an additional $1 for the record mentioned above at the main desk when I picked up the earlier request on Wednesday.
At that time, I was informed that you were again gone for the day (with apparently no substitute person covering your position). The desk also refused to accept the $1 because I was making an audio recording of the interaction for my own records, as the best evidence in case there were further difficulties, and as is the public's right to record conversations, particularly with government officials where there is no expectation of privacy. A companion with me witnessed this situation and can testify that I attempted to leave you the $1 you requested (but, in fact, already have in your possession in the form of $28.25).
In response, the individuals on the desk at that time left their posts, the male officer stating that he would be sending his supervisor. After waiting ten to fifteen minutes with no one at the counter, I left. I mention this procedure to show you that I attempted to deposit $1 per your dilatory demand, but your department declined to receive it.
I hope that future visits by mermbers of the public do not have to suffer this kind of delay and disrespect. For the record, such attempts to limit public documentation of your department's behavior are unlawful, regardless of whatever signs you may post in the lobby.
You are not responsible for the behavior of the staff up front, but I mention it in case the issue should ever arise in dealings you have with the public. Refusing to deal with a member of the public because she or he is making an audio recording is improper, one might even say, intimidating behavior (and particularly hypocritical considering the police department's video surveillance of its own lobby).
Please confirm that the August 26th document is available, by noon if possible.
Thanks for your attention.
Robert Norse
(423-4833)
That's clearly pretty crazy. Thank you for your persistence.
The reason they give the impression of not liking Robert Norse might be that persistence, but someone has to do it. He is being fairly polite there. You know they'd deliver faster if someone else was looking up their report.
Santa Cruz has an image of itself as a nice town. Police typically respond very quickly to calls about minor or noncrimes, in contrast to San Francisco to the north. My own experience with a police reports window was in Oakland where my inexpensive stolen car had been crashed. Oakland's department can't bother worrying about keeping up the public image. Basically, they hand the cars over to a tow yard which doesn't just hold them ransome - they actually charge a hefty fee if you are poor and can't afford the fee. This police window had 15 poor people standing for hours on end as an officer seemed to push through papers for child molestation court reports etc. at a rate of 1/20minutes. Someone complained and they barked at him. My report was just 6 lines that said the car was totaled and found four blocks from the tow yard. Going to the tow yard, it was strange that I walked by the police who had just found another car stolen and abandoned on the sidewalk five blocks from the yard, as though the thief is working for them. At this tow place, they wouldn't let you inspect how damaged your vehicle was before giving you the option of bailing it out for hundreds of dollars, or 'settling' by turning over $600 plus the car ownership title. If you had no money, they would send a collection agency. With noncitizens, there is a game where they get stopped, and they just have to start walking from the car, then they buy a used car at the tow auction two weeks later.
All of this was so unjust, particularly given the large numbers of people with cars stolen. If it wouldn't involve your last $500 in the bank, the best strategy with something like this or an accidental $300 red light ticket is cognitive avoidance and not worrying about it. However, the thought many might have had is wishing that some persistent person would do the work of objecting, and exploring whether their setup is legal. It just would require so much work - you'd have to stand in all sorts of lines and be able to figure out the law yourself. Maybe there was some illegal corruption is always sending cars to this tow yard or letting them charge whatever they want without a bid, or the police should be required to call your DMV phone number as soon as the car is found. But this would all take hours of time.
The reason they give the impression of not liking Robert Norse might be that persistence, but someone has to do it. He is being fairly polite there. You know they'd deliver faster if someone else was looking up their report.
Santa Cruz has an image of itself as a nice town. Police typically respond very quickly to calls about minor or noncrimes, in contrast to San Francisco to the north. My own experience with a police reports window was in Oakland where my inexpensive stolen car had been crashed. Oakland's department can't bother worrying about keeping up the public image. Basically, they hand the cars over to a tow yard which doesn't just hold them ransome - they actually charge a hefty fee if you are poor and can't afford the fee. This police window had 15 poor people standing for hours on end as an officer seemed to push through papers for child molestation court reports etc. at a rate of 1/20minutes. Someone complained and they barked at him. My report was just 6 lines that said the car was totaled and found four blocks from the tow yard. Going to the tow yard, it was strange that I walked by the police who had just found another car stolen and abandoned on the sidewalk five blocks from the yard, as though the thief is working for them. At this tow place, they wouldn't let you inspect how damaged your vehicle was before giving you the option of bailing it out for hundreds of dollars, or 'settling' by turning over $600 plus the car ownership title. If you had no money, they would send a collection agency. With noncitizens, there is a game where they get stopped, and they just have to start walking from the car, then they buy a used car at the tow auction two weeks later.
All of this was so unjust, particularly given the large numbers of people with cars stolen. If it wouldn't involve your last $500 in the bank, the best strategy with something like this or an accidental $300 red light ticket is cognitive avoidance and not worrying about it. However, the thought many might have had is wishing that some persistent person would do the work of objecting, and exploring whether their setup is legal. It just would require so much work - you'd have to stand in all sorts of lines and be able to figure out the law yourself. Maybe there was some illegal corruption is always sending cars to this tow yard or letting them charge whatever they want without a bid, or the police should be required to call your DMV phone number as soon as the car is found. But this would all take hours of time.
sorry - this is still on the tangent of police department bureaucratic nightmares, with my Oakland stolen car angle. I found a blog entry showing the identical situation. The city has to be making money on this situation. The towing and storage costs described here are much higher when someone is only notified over a week later that their car was recovered. A&B Towing really should be under suspicion for contributing to the scam as well. There is a comment here that the police reported a stolen car as drivable and intact, but the owner found it stripped by the time he got to A&B.
http://www.ronniedelcarmen.com/blog1/2005/09/stolen-car-found-not-so-fast-car-owner.html
http://www.ronniedelcarmen.com/blog1/2005/09/stolen-car-found-not-so-fast-car-owner.html
the murder of Gary King is the result of the police crackdown ordered by our Mayor
yes now Ron has blood on his hands. our Mayor ihas lost control, last week he addressed a community group reguarding the violance in our streets and he ended this meeting by going on a tyrade directed at a poor woman who's son was killed in a drive-by. At this point I feel that we have made a big mistake in electing Mayor "Ron" to office.
and
Democrat mayor Ron Dellums was a wealthy lobbyist for IBM, et al before becoming mayor. No rich person can possibly represent the workingclass, and Ron Dellums is no exception. One tip that Dellums was about to sing the company tune on police brutality was his support of millionaire Democrat Barack Obama, the one who was the first to call for bombing Iran. Obama, like every single other Democrat and Republican at every level of office is also a proud supporter of that US military base in the Middle East that exists to protect US oil profits, Israel. Obama has not supported single-payer health care. Obama supports the US embargo against Cuba. And, no millionaire can possibly represent the workingclass. The Democratic Party has NOTHING TO OFFER the workingclass and it is long overdue that the workingclass avoid the Democratic Party like the twin party of capitalism with the Republican Party that it is. Ron Dellums never offered a serious program to put an end to police murders or anything else. He gave lots of rhetoric but so far, there is no action. Now, he has made himself clear in support of the police murders, so please stop voting for the Democrats. If you want an end to police brutality, you have to vote Peace & Freedom or Green or run for office yourself. As to socialist newspapers circulating at these events protesting police brutality and murder, we need more of that to counter the capitalist press and their pro-police brutality lies and propaganda which is working overtime. We all know that if the victim were white, it would be front page news in the capitalist press and the cop would have been fired IMMEDIATELY. This is racism and an attack on the workingclass and that point needs to be made immediately and everywhere.
yes now Ron has blood on his hands. our Mayor ihas lost control, last week he addressed a community group reguarding the violance in our streets and he ended this meeting by going on a tyrade directed at a poor woman who's son was killed in a drive-by. At this point I feel that we have made a big mistake in electing Mayor "Ron" to office.
and
Democrat mayor Ron Dellums was a wealthy lobbyist for IBM, et al before becoming mayor. No rich person can possibly represent the workingclass, and Ron Dellums is no exception. One tip that Dellums was about to sing the company tune on police brutality was his support of millionaire Democrat Barack Obama, the one who was the first to call for bombing Iran. Obama, like every single other Democrat and Republican at every level of office is also a proud supporter of that US military base in the Middle East that exists to protect US oil profits, Israel. Obama has not supported single-payer health care. Obama supports the US embargo against Cuba. And, no millionaire can possibly represent the workingclass. The Democratic Party has NOTHING TO OFFER the workingclass and it is long overdue that the workingclass avoid the Democratic Party like the twin party of capitalism with the Republican Party that it is. Ron Dellums never offered a serious program to put an end to police murders or anything else. He gave lots of rhetoric but so far, there is no action. Now, he has made himself clear in support of the police murders, so please stop voting for the Democrats. If you want an end to police brutality, you have to vote Peace & Freedom or Green or run for office yourself. As to socialist newspapers circulating at these events protesting police brutality and murder, we need more of that to counter the capitalist press and their pro-police brutality lies and propaganda which is working overtime. We all know that if the victim were white, it would be front page news in the capitalist press and the cop would have been fired IMMEDIATELY. This is racism and an attack on the workingclass and that point needs to be made immediately and everywhere.
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$255.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network