three fourths of the police stations tested refused to obey arizona public records laws Original Article State's not-so-public records One-quarter of agencies surveyed failed to meet access requirements By Jacques Billeaud and Enric Volante The Arizona Republic Dec. 19, 2004 12:00 AM Cynthia Weber thought sheriff's investigators didn't care enough about who killed her brother and left his body burning in the desert near Tucson, so she tried to solve the case without them. But when she asked for the sheriff's files of the case - documents presumed by state law to be public records - she received only about 10 pages. She had to hire a private investigator and an attorney and spend thousands of dollars before she pried loose more than 800 pages. "It's just been so long and so grueling and so hard to get these files," Weber said. "And I know that there are just so many more that they just won't give us." A recent test of compliance with Arizona's Public Records Law suggests that, like Weber, citizens seeking information from the state's police agencies, school districts, or county and municipal officials likely will encounter delays and hassles. But should they? About half the agencies in the test delayed release of the records, and nearly one in four failed to turn them over within a week or never provided them. News organizations, including The Arizona Republic, led by the Associated Press Managing Editors of Arizona, sent journalists acting as regular citizens to 119 government agencies across Arizona over three days to audit compliance with the Public Records Law. Some agencies handed over records with little or no trouble. Others displayed ignorance of the law, fumbled their handling of the request, accused requesters of being rude when they declined to answer invasive questions, asked auditors to show a driver's license or said approval was first needed from bosses or lawyers. The audit aimed to find out how ordinary citizens would be treated when asking for records. Auditors were instructed to identify themselves by name but not to volunteer the names of their employers or why they wanted the documents. Citizens who accompanied auditors as observers on some visits were satisfied with how the requests were handled. But the citizens were unaware that officials sometimes failed to mail records as promised. Among the specific findings: A quarter of the school districts surveyed Sept. 14-16 flunked the test, even though a school public-relations employee in Phoenix circulated an e-mail to colleagues alerting them of the audit roughly two hours after it began. In Nogales, an auditor reported that the interim city attorney misstated the law, thumbed through a law book to prove his point and was unable to find any such passage. After failing a similar audit in 2001, the Cottonwood Police Department provided a textbook example of access to records, furnishing a report on a vehicle break-in within minutes. Advocates for open records said the audit's conclusions reflect ignorance of the law on the part of some public employees, a feeling that handing over records is a burden rather than an obligation, and a government culture in which some workers believe the documents belong to their agencies, not the people. Although state law requires government agencies to let any person inspect public records during office hours, officials said it is often difficult to hand over documents right away. They said they try hard to provide records to people, but they don't always have the resources to fill requests on the spot. It takes time for employees who already have a full slate of duties to track down records, blacken out confidential information and photocopy them, they said. The law doesn't specify a deadline for handing over documents. It was amended in 2002 to require records to be provided "promptly," and by mail if requested. "The general presumption is that if somebody walks in and asks for a piece of information, they will get it without unreasonable delay and without the type of identification procedures you described," Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard said. Relatively simple records should be handed over immediately when possible or within a few days, Goddard said. Audit participants requested drug and violence reports from public-school offices, accounts of property crimes from police and sheriff's offices, and records of meals, travel and other expenses incurred by city and county managers. Agencies that didn't hand over records or mail them in envelopes postmarked within seven days of an auditor's visit were found to have flunked. It took Cynthia Weber eight months and her lawyer's threat to sue the Pima County Sheriff's Department to get a huge batch of records in the investigation of the death of her brother, Jeff Glen Smith. Weber had concluded a year after her brother's death that investigators were never going to find the culprit because Smith was suspected of having worked in a migrant smuggling operation. "He was my baby brother," Weber said. "Nobody deserves what they (have) done to him." Detectives and their legal adviser reviewed the files page by page and reluctantly released 873 more pages, plus hundreds of photos and tapes. The Pima County Sheriff's Department, which passed the audit, said it never neglected the case and it withheld records only because releasing more than a few would threaten its ability to find the killers. The Arizona Supreme Court has said detectives can't withhold broad records just because an investigation remains open. Lt. Michael G. O'Connor, head of the sheriff's homicide unit, said he believed that releasing the records jeopardized the case but that the law required the documents be disclosed. In the audit, nearly three in four police agencies and school offices passed the test, compared with an 86 percent compliance rate for city and county managers' offices. About two hours after the audit began, many school public-relations workers received an e-mail warning about two auditors who appeared at a Phoenix district office asking for a violence and drugs report. In his e-mail, Phoenix Union High School District spokesman Craig Pletenik said he was "ambushed" by the two people. After questioning one of the two, Pletenik said he learned one was a newspaper reporter. "They seemed more interested in the process and how we responded rather than the information itself," Pletenik said. Two days later, Scottsdale Unified School District spokesman Tom Herrmann wrote: "My thanks for the warning. . . . We were able to (respond) within 10 minutes." The e-mails, sent over a listserv run by the Arizona School Public Relations Association, were obtained through the Public Records Law. Nedda Shafir, president of the public-relations group and spokeswoman for the Washington Elementary School District in Phoenix, said the alert didn't skew the audit's results. "Why did they send it out, then?" state Rep. Linda Gray, a top education advocate at the Legislature, said, laughing at the claim. Gray said the heads-up e-mail reflects the natural desire for government employees to appear in a favorable light. She said it was unacceptable for a quarter of districts either to refuse to release the report or to take too long to produce it. "The whole intent is to inform parents, and if the districts are not willing to give information to parents, they are not in compliance with the statute," Gray said. Ignorance of records law appeared most often among the receptionists and clerks, usually the first point of contact in records requests. But, in one case, an auditor reported that one of the people whose job it is to know the law demonstrated ignorance. The auditor reported that Luis Parra, interim city attorney for Nogales, erroneously insisted the city had 10 days to respond to a request. To prove his point, Parra pulled out a law book. Although he was unable to locate a provision, Parra maintained he was correct, the auditor reported. The attorney also claimed the records law requires people requesting records to provide addresses and phone numbers. Parra flipped through the book again and insisted he was right, even though he couldn't find such a passage, the auditor said. "We can't have just anyone walk in and show them these records," Parra told the auditor. In an interview this month, Parra disputed parts of the auditor's account, particularly the assertion that the law requires requesters to provide addresses and phone numbers. He said he might have mentioned a 10-day deadline for filling records requests, even though at the time he wasn't sure that there was such a requirement. "It's very hard to pretty much have dates on the top of my head," Parra said. In a similar audit by news organizations in 2001, the Cottonwood Police Department stood out as one of the agencies that most vehemently denied a public-records request. During this year's audit, clerk Nadine Flores provided the requested record within minutes. Unlike some of her counterparts, Flores didn't ask why the record was sought or raise the possibility that the record wouldn't be available during the visit. "Usually when a person walks in, we try to get them the report the day they walk in," she said. "That is typical for us." Tom Heck, superintendent of the Litchfield Elementary School District and president of the Arizona School Administrators Association, said it's human nature for some public employees to hesitate in handing out information, fumble around for records and inquire why requesters want documents. Even so, Heck said, schools need to train employees about which records are open. Prompt access to public records from schools hinges largely on whether a district is big enough to have a designated person to handle such requests, Heck said. "The bigger districts are more prepared for your test," said Heck, who doubles as the official spokesman for his small district. "If you came to me, I'd say I'd have to figure it out." A number of variables - staffing levels, the complexity of requests, the need to delete privileged information - make it difficult to generalize about the availability of records at local government agencies across the state, said Debbie Spinner, city attorney for Mesa and president of the Arizona City Attorneys Association. Spinner said her office trains Mesa employees on records law and advises them if questions arise. An employee in the City Manager's Office also is designated to handle requests. "We take public-record requests really seriously and jump on them as quickly as we can," Spinner said. Mesa's Police Department passed the test, but its City Manager's Office didn't. Advocates for open records said some hurdles to getting records promptly are the result of well-intentioned yet misguided efforts: trying to protect a public official from embarrassment, fear of making a mistake or angering a superior. Other barriers, however, are the result of obstructionism, said Eric Ehst, a board member of the Arizona Advocacy Network, a group that pushes for more citizen participation in government. Ehst criticized advice that the school public-relations group received at a seminar it held last month. Donn Williams, policy services director of the Arizona School Boards Association, recommended that districts claim all personnel records are confidential, thus allowing officials to refuse such requests. Williams told the group: "The way I look at it is that you tell them it's confidential, you stonewall as long as you can, and whenever they come back with an attorney's opinion or any attorney general's opinion or something like that, you do 'mea culpa, mea culpa, mea culpa,' and you give them the stuff. "It sounds a little funny, but that's essentially the way we recommend you do it, because more often than not, people won't pursue it after that first round." Williams said he wasn't advising people to obstruct or mislead the public. Williams said he meant that officials should stall long enough to determine whether a record is public so they don't expose the government to liability. He said he probably used the wrong word when he said "stonewall." Ehst said denying or unreasonably delaying the release of records robs taxpayers of the chance to see for themselves what the government is doing in their name. "If information isn't available to the public," Ehst said, "then government can overstep its bounds with impunity because the public doesn't know what it's doing." http://www.azcentral.com/specials/special19/articles/1218openshut-police-ON.html Testing Arizona's Public Records Law at police stations Associated Press Dec. 19, 2004 12:00 AM On three consecutive days in September, journalists visited about 120 government agencies across Arizona to test how they apply the state's Public Records Law. They sought the same types of records from three types of agencies - law enforcement, city or county managers offices, and schools. They identified themselves by name only because the law does not require a reason when making a records request and so they would be treated as average citizens. Overall, they could not see the records in about half their visits - despite the law's requirement that "public records and other matters in the custody of any officer shall be open to any person at all times during office hours." And despite the recent addition of the word "promptly" to this requirement. RECORD SOUGHT: Auditors identified a specific property crime through newspaper stories or other means and asked for the agency's report on the crime. The following summaries represent nearly all the agency visits in this category. APACHE COUNTY SHERIFF advertisement Saw record in visit? Yes Fee: $5 Three people reviewed the request. Driver's license was requested but after objection, not required. APACHE JUNCTION POLICE Saw record in visit? Yes Fee: $5 Was told that citizens usually need an appointment. To see record, had to provide address and phone on a "Public Records Request and Letter of Clearance Form." AVONDALE POLICE Saw record in visit? Yes Fee: $5 A written request was required. BISBEE POLICE Saw records in visit? Yes Fee: 20 cents per page Had to drive from police department, to City Hall, back to police department. Was told it would be a couple of days but "maybe" could see it that day. BUCKEYE POLICE Saw record in visit? No. Fee: $7 Agency said it would call back with records but never did. CAMP VERDE MARSHAL Saw record in visit? Yes Fee: $2 Was required to allow photocopying of driver's license to get record. Clerk would not give full name. CASA GRANDE POLICE Saw record in visit? Yes Fee: $5 First clerk said if the auditor wasn't involved in the case, then she couldn't see it. Informed about the law, a clerk nearby relented. COTTONWOOD POLICE Saw record in visit? Yes Fee: $3 Clerk helped find case number, retrieved report and turned it over in five minutes with few questions asked. COCONINO COUNTY SHERIFF Saw record in visit? Yes Fee: $6 Auditor wasn't asked to reveal details of identity. DOUGLAS POLICE Saw record in visit? Yes Fee: 20 cents per page Record turned over within eight minutes by clerk/dispatcher on duty, no questions asked. EL MIRAGE POLICE Saw record in visit? Yes Fee: None Auditor was asked for purpose of records request. ELOY POLICE Saw record in visit? Yes Fee: $7.50 Had to fill out police form with phone and driver's license number, walk a block to finance department and pay fee. Asked why $7.50, was told, "I don't know. That's just what we charge." FLAGSTAFF POLICE Saw record in visit? Yes Fee: $6 No written request was required. FLORENCE POLICE DEPARTMENT Saw record in visit? No Fee: $5 Clerk was going to a meeting, too busy to handle request. Requester was told to fill out form. Record mailed 12 days later. GLENDALE POLICE Saw record in visit? No. Fee: $5 Was told to fill out form; time for review and redacting was needed. Got record later. GREENLEE COUNTY SHERIFF Saw record in visit? Yes Fee: No No written request was required. GOODYEAR POLICE Saw record in visit? No Fee: $3 Three people in on decision to deny the record. Was told police chief must review all such requests. KINGMAN POLICE Saw record in visit? Yes Fee: $4.50 No written request was required. LAKE HAVASU POLICE Saw record in visit? Yes Fee: $3 Police provided a photocopy of a record. Names of some people involved in the incident were edited out. MARICOPA COUNTY SHERIFF Saw record in visit? No Fee: $3.50 Filled out a form, received document a week later. MARANA POLICE Saw record in visit? Yes Fee: $2.50 Auditor cited the Public Records Law in making his request. MESA POLICE Saw record in visit? No Fee: $5 Was told record would take at least two weeks by mail. Picked it up the following week. Detailed form required, asking "purpose of request" with following options - victim, witness, insurance claim or other. NOGALES POLICE Saw record in visit? Yes Fee: $2.50 Five people involved in decision. Went from police to county attorney, back to police, then chief of police ordered the record released. ORO VALLEY POLICE Saw record in visit? Yes Fee: $2 No written request was required. PARADISE VALLEY POLICE Saw record in visit? No Fee: $5 Paid fee to get record by mail later. Fee was returned by mail with note saying they couldn't find record. PAYSON POLICE Saw record in visit? No Fee: $3 Was told policy calls for seven to 10 days for processing records request. Form asks what record will be used for. Record mailed 12 days later. PEORIA POLICE Saw record in visit? Yes Fee: $1.60 Was asked repeatedly why wanted record if not victim. PIMA COUNTY SHERIFF Saw record in visit? No Fee: 60 cents Request turned over to detective, who provided documents a few days later. PINAL COUNTY SHERIFF Saw record in visit? No Fee: $7.50 Said they would send it if approved by the supervising sergeant. Mailed 14 days later. PRESCOTT POLICE Saw record in visit? Yes Fee: $1.50 Requester was asked repeatedly if she was victim. Did not give name, so "refused" was stamped on form where name was requested. PRESCOTT VALLEY POLICE Saw record in visit? No Fee: None Auditor wasn't asked to detail her identity. SAN LUIS POLICE Saw record in visit? Yes Fee: $3 The employee waiting on the auditor was helpful. SAFFORD POLICE Saw record in visit? Yes Fee: $5 Written request was required. SCOTTSDALE POLICE Saw record in visit? No Fee: $5 Would not supply report without victim name or exact address of crime. SHOW LOW POLICE Saw records in visit? Yes Fee: $5 First was told it would have to be mailed, later told it was available. Request form calls name, address and phone number "required" information. Under "voluntary information," the form asks requester to explain reason for seeking report and state involvement in the case. SIERRA VISTA POLICE Saw record in visit? Yes Fee: 20 cents per page Had to fill out a form, got record in 15 minutes, no questions asked. SURPRISE POLICE Saw record in visit? No Fee: $5 Clerk said incident under investigation so report not available yet. Initial report said to be available only to victim. TEMPE POLICE Saw record in visit? No Fee: $5 First told, "You can't just sit here and view them. We're not set up that way." Then supervisor said records could be viewed in a few days by appointment. Made one. TUCSON POLICE Saw record in visit? Yes. Fee: 25 cents per page Staff pointed out that first crimes inquired about were handled by another agency (auditor's error). Once a Tucson police record was requested, it was provided promptly. YAVAPAI COUNTY SHERIFF Saw records in visit? No Fee: None Records supervisor said inspection requires having a specific case number or social security number of someone involved. YUMA POLICE Saw record in visit? No Fee: 25 cents. No written request was required. YUMA COUNTY SHERIFF Saw records in visit? No Fee: $3 Was told it would take five business days to receive a copy of report. http://www.azcentral.com/specials/special19/articles/1218openshut-offices-ON.html Open records audit of city and county managers offices Associated Press Dec. 19, 2004 12:00 AM On three consecutive days in September, journalists visited about 120 government agencies across Arizona to test how they apply Arizona's Public Records Law. They sought the same types of records from three types of agencies - law enforcement, city or county managers offices, and schools. They identified themselves by name only because the law does not require a reason when making a records request and so they would be treated as average citizens. Overall, they could not see the records in about half their visits - despite the law's requirement that "public records and other matters in the custody of any officer shall be open to any person at all times during office hours." And despite the recent addition of the word "promptly" to this requirement. RECORD SOUGHT: Most recent expense report from a top administrator - either city or town manager, county manager or mayor. The following summaries represent nearly all the agency visits in this category. APACHE COUNTY MANAGER advertisement Saw record in visit? No Fee: None Was told that the person who would handle the request was at the landfill for routine disposal of records. Record sent by mail within a week. AVONDALE CITY HALL Saw record in visit? No Fee: 40 cents Was told that request must first go through attorney's office and then budget department. Staff called the next day for pick up. BULLHEAD CITY MANAGER Saw record in visit? No Fee: 18 cents per page Was asked repeatedly why the information was requested. Required to fill out form but did not answer why. Record arrived by mail in six days. BUCKEYE CITY MANAGER Saw record in visit? Yes Fee: None No written request was needed. CAMP VERDE TOWN MANAGER Saw record in visit? No Fee: None Was told that time was needed to find credit card records and remove non-public information. Provided stamped envelope; received record in mail next day. CASA GRANDE CITY MANAGER Saw record in visit? No Fee: None Was informed that request was unusual; city clerk and city attorney must review it. At clerk's request, left a detailed handwritten note. Record was postmarked a week later. CHANDLER CITY MANAGER Saw record in visit? No Fee: None Was told staff needed time to generate report. Picked it up the next day. COCHISE COUNTY MANAGER Saw record in visit? Yes Fee: None An employee who provided records said there was no question that the requested documents were public records. COCONINO COUNTY MANAGER Saw record in visit? No Fee: None Secretary said she would research and provide it. Never received receipt, just a letter from secretary stating the cost of a lunch. COTTONWOOD CITY MANAGER Saw record in visit? No Fee: $19.21 Told by city employees a request including rationale must be submitted in writing to the manager himself. Record was postmarked 13 days later; bill included $18 for an hour's "research." DOUGLAS CITY MANAGER Saw record in visit? Yes Fee: 50 cents During visit, was provided with a printout of all employee expenses. Then the manager's expenses were singled out in an e-mail sent next day. EL MIRAGE Saw record in visit? No Fee: None An employee said the policy was to get records within 72 hours. ELOY CITY MANAGER Saw record in visit? Yes Fee: None In and out with record in three minutes. FLAGSTAFF CITY MANAGER Saw record in visit? Yes Fee: None No written request was needed. FLORENCE TOWN MANAGER Saw record in visit? No Fee: None Asked to file request on blank paper. Record mailed next day; 25 cents per page copy fee not charged. Was told later that attorney reviews requests for personnel records - and one time when a business seeking a town contract "wanted to use the information to undercut the company that had the town's business." GILA COUNTY MANAGER Saw record in visit? Yes Fee: $1.50 Only delay was in hunting up the form that had to be filled out. GLENDALE CITY MANAGER Saw record in visit? No Fee: 20 cents per page Was told during visit there was no such thing as expense report, then by phone later that there was. It had not arrived by mail more than a week later. GOODYEAR CITY MANAGER Saw record in visit? No Fee: None Delay needed to retrieve record from another department. Had trouble with attempt to e-mail it that day, so it was faxed the next day. GRAHAM COUNTY MANAGER Saw record in visit? Yes Fee: None Auditor was asked why she wanted the records. GREENLEE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR Saw record in visit? Yes Fee: None Auditor was asked why she wanted the records. KINGMAN MAYOR Saw record in visit? Yes Fee: None The city requested the purpose of the request. LAKE HAVASU CITY MANAGER Saw record in visit? No Fee: 50 cents per page Filled out city form, had to call back twice before record was made available six days later at City Hall. Form asks whether requester is seeking information for a claim against the government. MARANA TOWN MANAGER Saw record in visit? Yes Fee: 25 cents A written request was required. MARICOPA COUNTY MANAGER Saw record in visit? No Fee: None Staff members suspected requester was a reporter so they called newspaper to confirm. Normal 25-cents-per-page fee not charged when record faxed later. MESA CITY MANAGER Saw record in visit? No Fee: None Five people considered request before saying there is no expense report, that the city manager pays for things "out of his own pocket." It was discovered later that the city manager did file expense reports. NOGALES CITY MANAGER Saw record in visit? No Fee: None Request went to interim city attorney, who insisted state law allows 10 days to respond and said, "We can't have just anyone walk in and show them these records." PARADISE VALLEY TOWN MANAGER Saw record in visit? No Fee: None Clerks were unaware of expense reports and would not allow inspection of previous month's overall budget figures because they hadn't been audited. PAYSON CITY MANAGER Saw record in visit? No Fee: 20 cents per page Was told staff was busy with payroll and a funeral the next day so records would be sent by mail; postmarked five days later. Form required, they said, because city attorney often reviews requests. PEORIA CITY MANAGER Saw record in visit? No Fee: None A secretary and a finance department employee said they do not have access to the records. Was told to fill out a form. PHOENIX CITY MANAGER Saw record in visit? No Fee: None Was told the written request would be reviewed by the public records office and probably finance. Record later provided. PIMA COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR Saw record in visit? Yes Fee: None Auditor wasn't asked to detail his identity. PINAL COUNTY MANAGER Saw record in visit? Yes Fee: None Was asked why we wanted the record but not required to tell. Public relations man remained with requesters the whole time, trying to determine why they were there. PRESCOTT CITY MANAGER Saw record in visit? No Fee: None Was told that all records requests are reviewed by legal department. Staff asked three times if requester was part of some "group or organization." PRESCOTT VALLEY TOWN MANAGER Saw record in visit? No Fee: None Was told the staff would need 48 hours to assemble the information requested. SANTA CRUZ COUNTY MANAGER Saw record in visit? Yes Fee: 25 cents per page Record was provided within five minutes. SCOTTSDALE CITY MANAGER Saw record in visit? Yes. Fee: None Filled out form with clerk, was sent to finance department. Four pages of records were provided with no questions in 15 minutes. SHOW LOW CITY MANAGER Saw record in visit? No. Fee: None Was told all requests require legal review. Asked how the office interprets "promptly" from state law, clerk said days or weeks but not a month. Record sent by mail, postmarked three days later. SOMERTON CITY HALL Saw record in visit? Yes Fee: 25 cents Auditor was asked why he wanted the records. SURPRISE CITY MANAGER Saw record in visit? Yes Fee: 50 cents per page Clerk said finance department even added a top sheet to help understand the information better. In and out within 15 minutes. TEMPE CITY MANAGER Saw record in visit? No Fee: None Guard said requester would probably need appointment but receptionist provided a form and said it would take a couple of days. City manager himself later phoned to ask who wanted the record and why. TUCSON CITY MANAGER Saw record in visit? Yes Fee: None Receptionist led requester to an administrator, who had two pages copied and, without prompting, explained each item line by line. YAVAPAI COUNTY MANAGER Saw record in visit? No Fee: None Told on a Thursday that records are in a warehouse so call back Monday. Provided with two pages of expenditure statements and a reimbursement stub. YUMA CITY ADMINISTRATION OFFICE Saw record in visit? Yes Fee: $3 Auditor wasn't asked to detail identity. YUMA COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR Saw record in visit? No Fee: 25 cents per page, $7.75 Was told records are in another building so not available until next day. After checking written form, staff deduced that requester was a reporter. http://www.azcentral.com/specials/special19/articles/1218openshut-schools-ON.html Open records audit fo school districts around Arizona Associated Press Dec. 19, 2004 12:00 AM On three consecutive days in September, journalists visited about 120 government agencies across Arizona to test how they apply Arizona's Public Records Law. They sought the same types of records from three types of agencies - law enforcement, city or county managers offices, and schools. They identified themselves by name only because the law does not require a reason when making a records request and so they would be treated as average citizens. Overall, they could not see the records in about half their visits - despite the law's requirement that "public records and other matters in the custody of any officer shall be open to any person at all times during office hours." And despite the recent addition of the word "promptly" to this requirement. RECORD SOUGHT: Auditors identified a specific school or school district and asked them for a school violence report, which federal law requires them to keep. The following summaries represent nearly all the agency visits in this category. BUCKEYE UNION HIGH SCHOOL advertisement Saw record in visit? No Fee: None Four people considered request and superintendent provided repeated assurances that it would be made available. After a week, had received nothing. CLIFTON UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT Saw record in visit? No Fee: None The following were given as reasons the report could not be viewed: No time, no staff available, report not kept, unclear which report was sought, need to check with the state, computer problems. DYSART HIGH SCHOOL Saw record in visit? Yes Fee: None Auditor wasn't asked to reveal details of his identity. ELOY INTERMEDIATE SCHOOL Saw record in visit? Yes Fee: "Nada" Receptionist sent requester to principal, who said that she could not get to it but that district office next door could. Clerk there found and provided it in 20 minutes. Asked for the charge, she said "Nada." FLAGSTAFF UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT Saw record in visit? No Fee: None Three staff members did not know where to find the report but had heard of it. Said they would check with someone else and call back later. FOUNTAIN HILLS SCHOOL DISTRICT Saw record in visit? Yes Fee: None Requester was required to reveal who she was to get document. Said she was reporter but refused to say why she wanted it. Superintendent asked, "Well, can you politely tell me why you want it?" GILBERT UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT Saw record in visit? Yes Fee: None Requester was asked whether she was a reporter. Was required to answer to get document. Was told that the question is asked of all who seek public documents so they can direct them to the proper person. GLOBE HIGH SCHOOL Saw record in visit? Yes Fee: None Was referred to assistant principal at high school, then to district office in another building. Record was provided there within 15 minutes. HIGLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT Saw record in visit? Yes Fee: None Started at district office, sent to high school. First staff members there never heard of record, was referred to principal, who asked repeatedly but did not insist on identity and purpose. KINGMAN HIGH SCHOOL Saw record in visit? Yes Fee: None The auditor didn't have to cite Arizona's Public Records Law in making the request. KYRENE PUBLIC SCHOOLS Saw record in visit? No Fee: None Four people handled the request. Requester was asked twice if she was a "concerned parent or community member" but was not required to say. Received a phone call three days later, e-mailed report in 15 minutes. Caller said she had been busy. LAKE HAVASU UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT Saw record in visit? Yes Fee: None No written request was required. MARANA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT Saw record in visit? Yes Fee: None Informed staff that the law does not require a requester to reveal whom he or she is with. Record provided courteously and promptly. MESA PUBLIC SCHOOLS Saw record in visit? No Fee: None Refused repeated requests to say why the record was being sought, noting that the Public Records Law does not require this. Was told, "Well, I don't know that it is a public record." Twenty minutes later, requester was contacted and told the record would be available immediately. Received it in mail three days later. PAYSON HIGH SCHOOL Saw record in visit? No Fee: None Administrator acknowledged that the report is a public record but could not access it; his secretary had removed it to include in a report and was off that day. PEORIA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT Saw record in visit? No Fee: None New employee didn't have computer password yet to access the report. Staff later contacted requester and record was mailed. PHOENIX UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT Saw record in visit? Yes Fee: None The district's media spokesman sent an e-mail to his counterparts in other school districts to say that auditors had asked for a violence and drugs report. PRESCOTT HIGH SCHOOL Saw record in visit? Yes Fee: No Was provided a computer printout right away and a Web address, too, to find further information about the school. SAFFORD UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT Saw record in visit? Yes Fee: None Office staff didn't ask the auditor to detail her identity. SCOTTSDALE PUBLIC SCHOOLS Saw record in visit? Yes Fee: None Clerk took request in writing but said the record cannot be viewed right away because staff is busy. Pressed to make it available, she called a supervisor. Clerk asked whether the law really requires inspection promptly then said, "You're persistent. That's good." SHADOW MOUNTAIN HIGH Saw record in visit? Yes Fee: None Auditor wasn't required to say why he wanted the records. SHOW LOW HIGH SCHOOL Saw record in visit? No Fee: None Principal was alone in office during visit, rushing to a meeting, and asked for a handwritten request so record could be mailed later. Requester never received it. ST. JOHNS HIGH SCHOOL Saw record in visit? No Fee: $1.20, 10 cents per page Requester resisted attempts to reveal reason for request, saying law does not require it. Principal called this "adversarial," saying he doesn't have to drop everything to produce a record. He said it would take one to four hours to start looking for record so he was asked to mail it and accept the fee in advance. Principal said he would pay for it instead, but an invoice came in the mail. The auditor later received the records. ST. JOHNS UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT Saw record in visit? No Fee: None District said violence and drug report was kept at high school, not in district office. TANQUE VERDE SCHOOL DISTRICT Saw record in visit? Yes Fee: None Auditor wasn't asked to say why she wanted the records. TOLLESON HIGH SCHOOL Saw record in visit? No Fee: None Told by superintendent's assistant that everyone was too busy and the records custodian was sick that day. Was advised to come back next day. Requester called again later and assistant said she would try to get the records. Had not received anything after a week. http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/1219openshut-side19.html Peoria district, parents clash over documents Louie Villalobos The Arizona Republic Dec. 19, 2004 12:00 AM Last September, a group of parents in the Peoria Unified School District filed a public-records request to find out how much money the district was spending on the financially troubled Challenger Learning Center. Instead of getting the documents it was legally entitled to, the Peoria United Parent Council got a letter from a district lawyer demanding that it pay for the gathering and copying of the documents. "That tells us they don't care if parents have questions," said Kim Olsen, vice president of the parents group. advertisement The request focused on the financial relationship between the school district, headquartered in Glendale, and the Challenger Space Center in Peoria. The parents group formed over the summer because of concerns about the district's involvement in the center, which amassed a debt of nearly $1 million over the past four years. The Peoria district has funded some of the staff salaries at the center. Parents said enough is enough in July when the district's governing board decided to use $165,000 of its budget toward the operation of the center. Under an agreement signed by the district and the center in 2000, that money does not have to be repaid. Money for Challenger staff salaries must be repaid. The school district's attorney told parents that it would cost 5 cents per page for the "voluminous" request. The letter also said the documents requested had confidential information that would need to be redacted at $15 per hour. The letter then asked the parents to call the law office if they wanted to proceed with the request. It was the only time this year that the district responded to a FOI request through its lawyer. In five other cases, the documents were turned over relatively quickly. Those requests, some of which sought the same information the parents group was seeking, were from the media. In fact, stacks of documents on the issue were released to The Arizona Republic in May at no charge. Greg Donovan, outgoing board president, said the charges were fair because the parents asked for the documents and Challenger-related questions so much that staff members were spending too much time on the parent group inquiries. "When have you crossed the line?" he said. "If you keep asking and asking and asking, we're going to have to start charging you." Instead of paying, the parents group asked the Arizona Attorney General's Office to investigate the district's relationship with the space cen- ter. Olsen said the letter to the Attorney Generals Office would not have been sent had the district simply provided the documents. Olsen said the Attorney General's Office has initiated an investigation. A spokesperson for the office would not confirm an investigation was taking place. http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/1220openshut20.html Snags likely in search for records Jacques Billeaud and Enric Volante Dec. 20, 2004 12:00 AM Parents trying to get reports on violence and drugs at their children's schools or homeowners seeking information from police about a burglary around the corner stand a good chance of having their motives scrutinized and getting requests for personal information when they ask for public records. If they decline to answer questions from public employees about why they want records, they might still get the information. But some government agencies might respond with suspicion and hostility or just refuse to hand over documents, even though state law doesn't require people to state their purpose. A recent test of Arizona's Public Records Law found that about half of the 119 local government agencies surveyed wanted to know why a person was requesting records that the law presumes are open to the public. advertisement The goal was to audit compliance with the records law over three days and document how people might be treated when seeking records. News organizations, led by the Associated Press Managing Editors of Arizona, sent journalists acting as regular citizens across the state Sept. 14-17. They requested reports about violence and drugs from school offices, property crime records from police agencies and expense documents submitted by city and county managers. Auditors were instructed to identify themselves by name but not to disclose their employers or why they wanted the documents. Some agencies told auditors that they had to complete records request forms and provide addresses and phone numbers before they could see documents. In a few cases, auditors were asked to show a driver's license. Even though some agencies require answers to those questions, the law doesn't. In any case, the level of information sought from auditors varied among agencies. A high school principal in St. Johns accused an auditor of being "adversarial" when he declined to say why he wanted the records. Similarly, a school superintendent in Fountain Hills complained that an auditor, who repeatedly declined to say why she wanted records, was rude. The audit also contributed to a change in records policy in Camp Verde, where one type of request form no longer requires people to state their purpose. Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard said the only acceptable inquiry of a person requesting records is whether it's for "commercial purposes," such as businesses reproducing documents for sale. Such distinctions require a sophisticated understanding of the law from receptionists and front-desk clerks, who often are the public's first point of contact in public-records requests, Goddard said. "Those folks are usually without (records) training," Goddard said. Some officials say it's human nature for government employees to ask about a person's interest in records and that the question can help narrow and speed document searches. "I think that's fine if they ask, but regardless, they are still required to give out the information," said state Rep. Linda Gray, a top education advocate at the Legislature. When an auditor told him that the law didn't require a person to provide a purpose for records, St. Johns High School Principal Larry Heap seemed less cooperative in providing a violence and drugs report. Heap accused the auditor of being "adversarial," saying he didn't have to drop everything to find the records. The auditor offered to make advance payment for postage. Heap then said he would pick up the costs to avoid delay. Instead, the auditor was mailed an invoice for $1.20. After paying the bill, he received the records. Earlier this month, Heap declined to answer questions, saying only that his office complies with the records law. Two employees of the Fountain Hills Unified School District asked an auditor the purpose of her inquiry. An employee asked the auditor whether she was a reporter. Yes, the auditor said, though she declined to answer questions about her purpose. Superintendent Marian Hermie then posed the same question, prompting the same response. "Well, can you politely tell me why you want it?" asked Hermie, who handed over the records later in the visit. In an interview a month later, Hermie complained about the auditor's refusal to answer the question. "Frankly, if this was an audit being conducted by your professional organization, I would like to go on record as saying her presence, conduct and attitude didn't speak very highly for your group," she said. Debbie Spinner, Mesa city attorney and president of the Arizona City Attorneys Association, said she suspects some public employees ask for a purpose when they really mean to inquire whether the documents will be used for commercial purposes, for which the government can charge more. Non-commercial uses include journalists gathering news for the public, motorists getting accident reports for insurance claims or people who are just curious. "If it's a non-commercial purpose, the person doesn't have to state the purpose," Spinner said. Like other request forms auditors came across, Camp Verde had a purpose question. About six months ago, the question struck Town Clerk Deborah Barber as unnecessary, so she said she talked with the town attorney about it, but it remained on the form. When reading the answer given by an auditor, Barber said she decided to take it up again with the new town attorney. "I told them that they should not be asking that," said Brad Woodford, the town's attorney. "The law doesn't require it." The question was eliminated from non-commercial request forms in Barber's office. The change came a day after the visit, and a month before Barber said she learned of the audit.