Lodi gets F+ on police audit, but city leaders find fault with report

On Dec. 4, journalists-turned-auditors visited law enforcement agencies throughout California, requesting public information for what would become a statewide report. The results: Many agencies flunked.

Lodi's police department, for instance, received an "F+" grade for, among other things, telling the auditor that crime information is only available to victims. Galt police and the San Joaquin County Sheriff's Office both received C+ grades, among the better scores in the state.

Lodi Police Chief Jerry Adams defended his department, saying that a subsequent written request for information was so lengthy that it was sent to the city attorney's office.

When they are hired, all police records clerks go to a school that includes a session on public information, and Adams said his employees did nothing wrong.

"My take on it is (the survey) was designed in such a way that most agencies did get a D or F," he said.

The goal of the audit was to draw attention to the lack of training on public records laws, said Rich McKee, president of Californians Aware, which organized the audit.

"It's all about the people on the front line not knowing, not having enough training or not being sufficiently trained," said McKee, who over the years has filed 21 lawsuits against agencies that do not release public information.

In Lodi, the written request for information was forwarded to Deputy City Attorney Janice Magdich, who questioned the city's final grade. The city lost points for requesting an extension to respond, but Magdich said she never asked for an extension and did respond within the 10-day limit set out in California's public records law.

McKee said that he would look into any complaints about inaccuracies in the audit but, since the study was released Friday, has only heard a complaint regarding Redding's results. He is investigating the Redding complaint and said any errors or mistakes would be corrected.

The audit, which can be found at http://www.calaware.org, targeted 184 police and sheriff's departments, as well as 32 offices of the California Highway Patrol.

In each case, auditors went to the department's front office and asked for information about recent burglaries, robbers and sexual assaults, along with arrest information between Nov. 1 and Nov. 15. They also asked for a copy of the senior officer's contract and disclosure of investments and property, known as a Form 700.

Then the auditors left a letter asking for more information, such as drug crime forfeiture assets, recent deaths in custody, complaints against officers, earnings and workers' compensation complaints. They did not ask for names, and McKee contended that all information sought is legally public information.

Magdich argued that some information, such as workers' compensation claims information, cannot be disclosed, and she was not happy with the results.

"It's upsetting, to have it splashed across the newspapers that you failed to produce records," Magdich said. "I'd argue that the records were produced, and that the records that were not produced are not public records. But Cal Aware did not disclose that in their results."

In Galt, Chief Loren Cattolico said most requests involve only small amounts of information, so it isn't time-consuming. The department only has one records staff member to deal with such requests, while Cattolico's previous employer, the Walnut Creek Police Department, has six to eight such employees. That city scored a B.

Cattolico wasn't sure how to improve the response to a large request, but did treat it as a learning experience.

"I learned that something can't sit in a tray for two days. A C isn't horrible but a B is better, and we'd prefer an A," he said.

At the San Joaquin County Sheriff's Department, the request was first met with evasiveness. When the auditor returned, spokesman Les Garcia was polite and said law enforcement officers had learned of the audit and spread the word on a private Web site.

Adams said his department soon began receiving e-mails from other departments.

Police agencies began contacting a Fullerton-based law office that represents the California Police Chiefs Association, of which Adams is currently president.

On Dec. 11 the attorneys sent a letter to all agencies, telling them that most of the items requested must be disclosed under state law.

Contact reporter Layla Bohm at layla@lodinews.com.

First published: Wednesday, January 17, 2007