PDA

View Full Version : AB962 Phone Poll / Correspondence Request Reply


jont92619
10-30-2009, 1:31 PM
I sent in a Public Records Act request for the phone poll results and correspondence count regarding AB962. My request letter is below. The Governor's office reply is below that. Anyone have any other ideas for getting the information? Just looking for a simple for / against count.


October 14, 2009


RE: Public Records Act Request for AB 962 Poll and mail results

Dear Sirs,

On 10/12/2009 I telephoned your office to request the public opinion poll and correspondence results for AB 962 (Ammunition Registration) that has come through the Governor's office. I was instructed by your staff to make a Public Records Request for this information. Due to the extreme public interest, I would like to make this Public Records Act request for the automated phone poll results of AB962 (Ammunition Registration) that would include the tally for and against the bill.

I would also like to request the for and against tally results of any persons who may have called in to speak directly with staff members, as well as a for and against count of US Postal Mail, e mailed, private courier and faxed correspondence expressing a for or against view on the bill.

I am not requesting to view the actual correspondence or any contact information. A simple a breakdown of numbers for and against AB962, as well as tallys for the types of correspondence including a for and against breakdown. I would appreciate this information be provided to me within ten days from today. I did make this request via your web site on 10/12/2009, but thought I should fax in the request as well.

You may mail the information to the address below, or Fax it to the number below. I thank you in advance for your time and assistance with this matter.




The Governor's response.....



10/27/09

From: Office of the Governor

Re: Public Records Act Request

You recently sent a Public Records Act request to the Governor’s Office for a tally of how many
Constituents had sent letters, emails, phone messages etc. indicating that they supported AB962, and how many had communicated to the Governor that they opposed this bill.

We do have responsive documents, including the communications themselves, and certain summary documents. These documents are exempt from production as “correspondence of and to the Governor or employees of the Governor’s Office.” (Gov. Code 6254, subd. (1).) The communications themselves are such correspondence, and the summaries are also exempt because they are derived from and summarize the exempt correspondence. The documents are also exempt under the deliberative doctrine process doctrine, because these documents are part of the Governor’s decision making process, and public disclosure of them could limit his access to important information. (Gov. Code 6255; Times Mirror Co. v. Superior Court (1991) 53 Cal.3d 1325). Therefore, we are not producing the responsive documents to you. Please feel free to contact me with any questions.

Daniel P. Maguire
Deputy Legal Affairs Secretary

Doug L
10-30-2009, 2:10 PM
I sent in a Public Records Act request for the phone poll results and correspondence count regarding AB962.
My request letter is below.
The Governor's office reply is below that...

Thank you for making the request, and posting Arnold's reply.

You can bet, that if the public input supported Arnold's signing, they would definitely have provided the results, in order to justify his action.

Looks like they simply intend to be obnoxious, and stonewall.

Mikeb
10-30-2009, 2:33 PM
Don't ask , don't tell?
what a girly man...
Mike

SeanCasey
10-30-2009, 2:34 PM
public disclosure of them could limit his access to important information

So the public having access to the same information that he had would limit his access to his own information? Is it me or is that the most ridiculous loaded with bullcrap argument possible to make?

glockman19
10-30-2009, 2:39 PM
Keep up the pressure. I'd send, fax, or e-mail a copy to the Ken & Jon radio show and other news outlets.

Shotgun Man
10-30-2009, 3:00 PM
Good job, OP.

Let's see the results and demand a response.

freonr22
10-30-2009, 3:03 PM
I thought Oaklander made a request too

unusedusername
10-30-2009, 4:01 PM
I thought Oaklander made a request too

If Oaklander made a request then we probably won't hear about it until after the suit is filed... :D

dantodd
10-30-2009, 4:11 PM
So the public having access to the same information that he had would limit his access to his own information? Is it me or is that the most ridiculous loaded with bullcrap argument possible to make?

No, it means that if the governor is required to release direct correspondence at this time it might have a chilling effect on prospective correspondents in the future. If, for example, he were required to release all the letters etc. at this time it is possible that correspondence about policy could later be demanded on the same grounds. It would be convenient if the governor didn't have to worry that Greenpeace might demand to see a letter or transcript of a call from the CEO of Exxon.

Sinestr
10-30-2009, 4:25 PM
10/27/09

From: Office of the Governor

Re: Public Records Act Request

You recently sent a Public Records Act request to the Governor’s Office for a tally of how many
Constituents had sent letters, emails, phone messages etc. indicating that they supported AB962, and how many had communicated to the Governor that they opposed this bill.

We do have responsive documents, including the communications themselves, and certain summary documents. These documents are exempt from production as “correspondence of and to the Governor or employees of the Governor’s Office.” (Gov. Code 6254, subd. (1).) The communications themselves are such correspondence, and the summaries are also exempt because they are derived from and summarize the exempt correspondence. The documents are also exempt under the deliberative doctrine process doctrine, because these documents are part of the Governor’s decision making process, and public disclosure of them could limit his access to important information. (Gov. Code 6255; Times Mirror Co. v. Superior Court (1991) 53 Cal.3d 1325). Therefore, we are not producing the responsive documents to you. Please feel free to contact me with any questions.

Daniel P. Maguire
Deputy Legal Affairs Secretary



What a bunch of BS. If you have to hide behind that much legal garb, you know your lying. Typical ruling class answer to us peeon's. :43::43:

xxdabroxx
11-02-2009, 7:50 AM
did Oak send in one as well?

HondaMasterTech
11-02-2009, 8:14 AM
Politicians aren't supposed to make descisions behind closed doors. They are servants of the public. We have a right to see this information, be it used for good or bad.

DTOM CA!
11-02-2009, 9:08 AM
What can we do about this. We have a right to know the raw data on what the % is of who was for and against. Maybe you should send the response letter to all the major Newspapers and the NRA to see if they can be pressured into releasing the info ? Is there any past precedence that the Govs. office released this type of info ?

dfletcher
11-02-2009, 9:21 AM
I think the only letter the Governor will understand is one that has 30,000 or so signatures on it which reads "I shall not vote for you in the future due to your recent signing of AB962". I realize there are good reasons to not do that, but to borrow a phrase from the movies "I'm tired of him pissing down my leg and telling me it's raining".

bombadillo
11-02-2009, 9:45 AM
That is ridiculous. We should be able to see what the people decided as he is indeed a public servant. This is another prime example of the government no longer fearing the people, and the people being put in fear by the government.

kermit315
11-02-2009, 10:03 AM
I want to see if Oaks response is similar. If it is, I could almost see some action springing from it, assuming there is no basis in law for the shenanigans they are pulling.

nicki
11-02-2009, 10:05 AM
You know, your response or lack of response may be something the press may actually want to cover.

Yes I know the media is anti gun, but the Public records act proposition which passed with 83 percent of the vote was their "creation".

The way you talk to them is the following: The issue isn't gun rights, the issue is public access to public records which the overwhelming majority of Californian's supported.

If the governor's office refuses to comply with your simple request, what other simple requests of public records which aren't as high profile as yours are being ignored.

If the governor ignores the Public Records Act, what kind of example does that create for the rest of the government agencies?

Nicki

Super Spy
11-02-2009, 10:26 AM
Geez proof that they KNOW they are full oh S#!t

xxdabroxx
11-02-2009, 12:15 PM
maybe PRA something else that passed and see if the outcome is any different.

Bigballaizm
11-02-2009, 12:35 PM
Unbelievable response... :no:

Larua
11-02-2009, 2:25 PM
10/27/09

From: Office of the Governor

Re: Public Records Act Request

You recently sent a Public Records Act request to the Governor’s Office for a tally of how many
Constituents had sent letters, emails, phone messages etc. indicating that they supported AB962, and how many had communicated to the Governor that they opposed this bill.

We do have responsive documents, including the communications themselves, and certain summary documents. These documents are exempt from production as “correspondence of and to the Governor or employees of the Governor’s Office.” (Gov. Code 6254, subd. (1).) The communications themselves are such correspondence, and the summaries are also exempt because they are derived from and summarize the exempt correspondence. The documents are also exempt under the deliberative doctrine process doctrine, because these documents are part of the Governor’s decision making process, and public disclosure of them could limit his access to important information. (Gov. Code 6255; Times Mirror Co. v. Superior Court (1991) 53 Cal.3d 1325). Therefore, we are not producing the responsive documents to you. Please feel free to contact me with any questions.

Daniel P. Maguire
Deputy Legal Affairs Secretary

They claim an exemption on two grounds:

(1) "the summaries are also exempt because they are derived from and summarize the exempt correspondence"
(2) "The documents are also exempt under the deliberative doctrine process doctrine [sic]"

IIRC, most exemptions to PRA allow but don't require agencies to exempt certain kinds of records.

If you look OP's wording, he asked for the "results" of the automated phone poll (among others), including "the tally for and against the bill".

Let's look at an example of a similar disclosure by the governor's office:

http://www.news10.net/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=66777
Schwarzenegger has not taken a position on the new bill, governor's office spokeswoman Andrea McCarthy said Friday. McCarthy said the governor's office has received more than 100,000 calls, letters and e-mails regarding the bill.

"The majority are actually opposed to the [Harvey Milk] bill," McCarthy said. "But when it comes to Twitter posts, they tend to support the bill," she added, acknowledging more support for the legislation among new media users than traditional letter-writers.

There are some subtle differences between this disclosure and what OP asked for. This provides: (1) a rounded, approximate tally of total phone, letter, and e-mail communications regarding the bill; (2) a description of whether a majority of all such communications supported or opposed the bill; and (3) a description of whether a majority of communications in a single medium (specifically Twitter) supported or opposed the bill.

This type of information, anyway, seems like it should be fair game for a PRAR. It would be interesting to hear the governor's office explain why it disclosed such information for one bill but claimed a PRAR exemption for the exact same types of information about another bill from the same legislative session.

Under Times Mirror (which seems like a bad decision IMHO), I'm guessing even a heavily redacted document that shows only factual information could still be found to be exempt under the deliberative process privilege. Furthermore, there is also the question of whether pursuing this is a worthwhile use of resources. Still, it would be nice to make the governor's office scramble to justify their contradictory behavior vis-a-vis SB572 and AB962.

Foulball
11-02-2009, 2:26 PM
maybe PRA something else that passed and see if the outcome is any different.

+1 Great Idea!

jont92619
11-02-2009, 8:49 PM
Good write up Laura. I'd love to push the issue or at least have a Lawyer Letter zapped over to them. It would warm my heart just to be a pain in the butt. It's a bit out of my scope of knowledge though so I'd have to rely on the kindness of some legal eagle strangers..

HondaMasterTech
11-02-2009, 8:54 PM
So, Arnold based his descision on a bunch of tweeters on twitter? Now I know why his breath smells like crap. He has his head shoved up his...

HondaMasterTech
11-02-2009, 8:55 PM
Next, we'll hear about him making a descision based on a pile of chicken bones tossed into an overturned hubcap.

2009_gunner
11-02-2009, 9:10 PM
The reasoning of the response is absurd on its face.

By their logic, people would not vote because the final tallies are made public. The telephone polls are simply informal votes, and releasing the results will have no effect on the governator's future ability to place his finger in the wind.

KylaGWolf
11-03-2009, 9:50 AM
So, Arnold based his descision on a bunch of tweeters on twitter? Now I know why his breath smells like crap. He has his head shoved up his...

Obviously he ignored my VETO Twitter then.

xxdabroxx
11-03-2009, 9:53 AM
think it's safe to say Oak has something up his sleeve since he has stayed out of this thread?

:popcorn:

goober
11-03-2009, 9:58 AM
good job OP and hopefully we can push harder on this. there has to be some recourse.

stormy_clothing
11-03-2009, 10:04 AM
A show of hands of people who think A: the governor cares what the phone call tallies are, he's a lame duck B: even if in some future date they produce them will anyone actually trust that information at this point ?

He did'nt veto it because some other a holes wanted political wins on their records. Period.

There is no precedence for this law to be put in effect it cost millions of dollars already and will cost millions more to enforce if they even can. It was BS from the get go and it goes to show that mayors should talk to the governor directly as these representatives obviously have too much time on there hands.

bodger
11-03-2009, 11:59 AM
You know, your response or lack of response may be something the press may actually want to cover.

Yes I know the media is anti gun, but the Public records act proposition which passed with 83 percent of the vote was their "creation".

The way you talk to them is the following: The issue isn't gun rights, the issue is public access to public records which the overwhelming majority of Californian's supported.

If the governor's office refuses to comply with your simple request, what other simple requests of public records which aren't as high profile as yours are being ignored.

If the governor ignores the Public Records Act, what kind of example does that create for the rest of the government agencies?

Nicki

Good points. And who knows, the media might think by demanding that these records be made public, they have an opportunity to get ahold of a lot of public opinion that demonstrates further how anti-gun CA actually is.

In any case, the very least we should settle for is to see the results of all of our hard work faxing, e-mailing and calling Arnie in our efforts to get him to veto 962.

Aldemar
11-03-2009, 3:39 PM
[QUOTE=




The Governor's response.....



10/27/09

From: Office of the Governor

Re: Public Records Act Request

You recently sent a Public Records Act request to the Governor’s Office for a tally of how many
Constituents had sent letters, emails, phone messages etc. indicating that they supported AB962, and how many had communicated to the Governor that they opposed this bill.

We do have responsive documents, including the communications themselves, and certain summary documents. These documents are exempt from production as “correspondence of and to the Governor or employees of the Governor’s Office.” (Gov. Code 6254, subd. (1).) The communications themselves are such correspondence, and the summaries are also exempt because they are derived from and summarize the exempt correspondence. The documents are also exempt under the deliberative doctrine process doctrine, because these documents are part of the Governor’s decision making process, and public disclosure of them could limit his access to important information. (Gov. Code 6255; Times Mirror Co. v. Superior Court (1991) 53 Cal.3d 1325). Therefore, we are not producing the responsive documents to you. Please feel free to contact me with any questions.

Daniel P. Maguire
Deputy Legal Affairs Secretary[/QUOTE]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

He forgot to <lifting up rug and sweeping> somewhere in that reply:D

bodger
11-03-2009, 8:24 PM
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

He forgot to <lifting up rug and sweeping> somewhere in that reply:D


This kind of crap just cannot be allowed to stand. I hope the right people are on this and we get access to this information.

"Shut and go away, we're the government and there's nothing you can do about it" just isn't going to wash.

Unless of course, this is another situation where we must sit on our hands so as not to impact pending 2A actions.

anthonyca
11-03-2009, 8:36 PM
It is not easy to get legally required info from our govt. They need to be nailed hard for this pattern.

I d not know the legality of this denial but I was involved in a blatent illegal denial. When the time is right I will sick oaklander on them if he wants the case.

NayaL8R
11-20-2009, 8:11 AM
"We do have responsive documents, including the communications themselves, and certain summary documents. These documents are exempt from production as “correspondence of and to the Governor or employees of the Governor’s Office.” (Gov. Code 6254, subd. (1).) The communications themselves are such correspondence, and the summaries are also exempt because they are derived from and summarize the exempt correspondence. The documents are also exempt under the deliberative doctrine process doctrine, because these documents are part of the Governor’s decision making process, and public disclosure of them could limit his access to important information. (Gov. Code 6255; Times Mirror Co. v. Superior Court (1991) 53 Cal.3d 1325). Therefore, we are not producing the responsive documents to you."

I understand that the responsive documents themselves are exempt because they fall under Gov. Code 6254, which states as such. However, we are not requesting copies of the responsive documents or their summaries. What we are requesting are the results of the "responsive documents" in which would in no way violate (Gov. Code 6255; Times Mirror Co. v. Superior Court (1991) 53 Cal.3d 1325) because the results would in no way jeopardize the deliberative process nor would providing the results and releasing this information threaten the governor's security.

jont92619
11-20-2009, 4:13 PM
"We do have responsive documents, including the communications themselves, and certain summary documents. These documents are exempt from production as “correspondence of and to the Governor or employees of the Governor’s Office.” (Gov. Code 6254, subd. (1).) The communications themselves are such correspondence, and the summaries are also exempt because they are derived from and summarize the exempt correspondence. The documents are also exempt under the deliberative doctrine process doctrine, because these documents are part of the Governor’s decision making process, and public disclosure of them could limit his access to important information. (Gov. Code 6255; Times Mirror Co. v. Superior Court (1991) 53 Cal.3d 1325). Therefore, we are not producing the responsive documents to you."

I understand that the responsive documents themselves are exempt because they fall under Gov. Code 6254, which states as such. However, we are not requesting copies of the responsive documents or their summaries. What we are requesting are the results of the "responsive documents" in which would in no way violate (Gov. Code 6255; Times Mirror Co. v. Superior Court (1991) 53 Cal.3d 1325) because the results would in no way jeopardize the deliberative process nor would providing the results and releasing this information threaten the governor's security.



So is that the language I should use in a response letter to them?

NayaL8R
11-20-2009, 6:11 PM
"We do have responsive documents, including the communications themselves, and certain summary documents. These documents are exempt from production as “correspondence of and to the Governor or employees of the Governor’s Office.” (Gov. Code 6254, subd. (1).) The communications themselves are such correspondence, and the summaries are also exempt because they are derived from and summarize the exempt correspondence. The documents are also exempt under the deliberative doctrine process doctrine, because these documents are part of the Governor’s decision making process, and public disclosure of them could limit his access to important information. (Gov. Code 6255; Times Mirror Co. v. Superior Court (1991) 53 Cal.3d 1325). Therefore, we are not producing the responsive documents to you. Please feel free to contact me with any questions.

Daniel P. Maguire
Deputy Legal Affairs Secretary[/QUOTE]

IF CALGUNNERS WANT TO USE PART OR ALL OF MY STATEMENT GO AHEAD!
First off, if you actually look at the Government Code 6245, you'll notice that you have erred and actually quoted Government Code 6245 (L) [upper case for emphasis] not 6245 subdivision (1). Obviously, the communications are correspondence and that makes it exempt from public disclosure. We are not asking for disclosure of these correspondence nor are we asking for detailed information regarding the deliberation processes. We are asking for the results of the "correspondence letters", not to be confused with the summary, and are legally entitled to this information under Government Code 6255 which states that, "(a) Unless otherwise prohibited by law, any agency that has information that constitutes an identifiable public record not exempt from disclosure pursuant to this chapter that is in an electronic format shall make that information available in an electronic format when requested by any person and, when applicable, shall comply with the following:
(1) The agency shall make the information available in any electronic format in which it holds the information." As previously stated, the information requested does not violate any law. Furthermore, Government Code 6245 (L) states that, "public records shall not be transferred to the custody of the Governor's Legal Affairs Secretary to evade the disclosure provisions of this chapter." Blatantly, we are entitled to the results either in an electronic format or written under Government Code 6255. Look forward to the results.

Foulball
11-20-2009, 10:14 PM
Furthermore, Government Code 6245 (L) states that, "public records shall not be transferred to the custody of the Governor's Legal Affairs Secretary to evade the disclosure provisions of this chapter."

This is my favorite part.

:chris:

NayaL8R
11-24-2009, 7:53 PM
Any updates on the situation?