News

Police department boosts grade from F- to A

Grade more reflective of actual department performance, Palo Alto city officials say

Improving from an F- to an A, the Palo Alto Police Department nearly aced the latest open-government audit by Californians Aware, a non-profit advocating for government transparency.

The department only lost points for charging extra for copies of crime and accident reports, one of the many requests an anonymous volunteer auditor posed Oct. 16.

Overall, the department earned an A- in legal compliance and an A+ in customer service, according to CalAware.

"We did exceptionally well," said Sheryl Contois, director of technical services for the department.

Both Contois, and Assistant City Attorney Donald Larkin, said they thought this audit was more reflective of the department's overall performance than the January audit, which Contois called "an anomaly."

What's local journalism worth to you?

Support Palo Alto Online for as little as $5/month.

Join

The previous audit was criticized for its methodology, inconsistent scoring, small sample size and use of grading criteria not based strictly on public records laws.

CalAware Executive Director Emily Francke said the organization originally planned to conduct a follow-up audit, but was persuaded to make "some pretty drastic changes" in response to complaints.

Rather than asking for the number of deaths in custody the department has had -- a request unfamiliar to employees because Palo Alto has had no deaths in at least 30 years -- the volunteer auditor asked for information about a recent burglary, Larkin said.

In addition, the recent audit broke down grades into two categories -- legal compliance and customer service. Agencies began with 100 points in each category. An agency earning 100 in the legal category adhered to the law, but did not necessarily perform extraordinarily, Franke said.

Scores of law enforcement agencies statewide climbed from an average of F to a C, Francke said, an improvement she attributed to both changes in the audit and a proactive response from agencies.

Stay informed

Get daily headlines sent straight to your inbox in our Express newsletter.

Stay informed

Get daily headlines sent straight to your inbox in our Express newsletter.

"I certainly think (the first survey) was an eye-opener for them," Francke said Thursday. "The fact they know about it now I think has a lot more to do with the change."

But Larkin said he attributed most of the shift to the change in the audit.

"I think (this audit) represents how we operate," Larkin said.

"Our records people understand that when people come into the Police Department it's usually a stressful situation for them and they do everything they can to make the people feel comfortable," Larkin said.

Although agencies have improved statewide, many records employees still asked the volunteer auditor for his or her name and purpose, information that is not required to get public data, Francke said.

Also, many department employees assumed the auditor was asking for a report, rather than just particular details from the burglary, Francke said. The agencies are required to provide information such as the location and circumstances of a crime, but do not need to provide the report to everyone.

Larkin said the trickiest task for records workers is to remember which records are public and which are exempt from disclosure.

CalAware volunteers visited 116 law enforcement agencies, making a written request and an oral request for information.

Generally, smaller departments performed better, according to CalAware's Web site, http://www.calaware.org .

The East Palo Alto Police Department earned a B in legal compliance and an A- in customer service, up from an F-. Mountain View had a B in legal and an A+ in customer service; it was not surveyed previously.

Franke said her organization plans to continue checking on the responsiveness of law enforcement agencies, but intends to focus on a different type of agency, to remain unannounced, in 2008.

A front row seat to local high school sports.

Check out our new newsletter, the Playbook.

Follow Palo Alto Online and the Palo Alto Weekly on Twitter @paloaltoweekly, Facebook and on Instagram @paloaltoonline for breaking news, local events, photos, videos and more.

Police department boosts grade from F- to A

Grade more reflective of actual department performance, Palo Alto city officials say

by / Palo Alto Online

Uploaded: Fri, Nov 30, 2007, 10:19 am

Improving from an F- to an A, the Palo Alto Police Department nearly aced the latest open-government audit by Californians Aware, a non-profit advocating for government transparency.

The department only lost points for charging extra for copies of crime and accident reports, one of the many requests an anonymous volunteer auditor posed Oct. 16.

Overall, the department earned an A- in legal compliance and an A+ in customer service, according to CalAware.

"We did exceptionally well," said Sheryl Contois, director of technical services for the department.

Both Contois, and Assistant City Attorney Donald Larkin, said they thought this audit was more reflective of the department's overall performance than the January audit, which Contois called "an anomaly."

The previous audit was criticized for its methodology, inconsistent scoring, small sample size and use of grading criteria not based strictly on public records laws.

CalAware Executive Director Emily Francke said the organization originally planned to conduct a follow-up audit, but was persuaded to make "some pretty drastic changes" in response to complaints.

Rather than asking for the number of deaths in custody the department has had -- a request unfamiliar to employees because Palo Alto has had no deaths in at least 30 years -- the volunteer auditor asked for information about a recent burglary, Larkin said.

In addition, the recent audit broke down grades into two categories -- legal compliance and customer service. Agencies began with 100 points in each category. An agency earning 100 in the legal category adhered to the law, but did not necessarily perform extraordinarily, Franke said.

Scores of law enforcement agencies statewide climbed from an average of F to a C, Francke said, an improvement she attributed to both changes in the audit and a proactive response from agencies.

"I certainly think (the first survey) was an eye-opener for them," Francke said Thursday. "The fact they know about it now I think has a lot more to do with the change."

But Larkin said he attributed most of the shift to the change in the audit.

"I think (this audit) represents how we operate," Larkin said.

"Our records people understand that when people come into the Police Department it's usually a stressful situation for them and they do everything they can to make the people feel comfortable," Larkin said.

Although agencies have improved statewide, many records employees still asked the volunteer auditor for his or her name and purpose, information that is not required to get public data, Francke said.

Also, many department employees assumed the auditor was asking for a report, rather than just particular details from the burglary, Francke said. The agencies are required to provide information such as the location and circumstances of a crime, but do not need to provide the report to everyone.

Larkin said the trickiest task for records workers is to remember which records are public and which are exempt from disclosure.

CalAware volunteers visited 116 law enforcement agencies, making a written request and an oral request for information.

Generally, smaller departments performed better, according to CalAware's Web site, http://www.calaware.org .

The East Palo Alto Police Department earned a B in legal compliance and an A- in customer service, up from an F-. Mountain View had a B in legal and an A+ in customer service; it was not surveyed previously.

Franke said her organization plans to continue checking on the responsiveness of law enforcement agencies, but intends to focus on a different type of agency, to remain unannounced, in 2008.

Comments

More-Open-Access
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Nov 30, 2007 at 11:38 am
More-Open-Access, Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Nov 30, 2007 at 11:38 am

The first audit by CalAware was probably over the top in the time lines demanded for information. That is, they appeared and demanded all sorts of material that the Department obviously didn't have on hand. As the article noted, stats on the number of deaths of prisoners in custody was not a statistic that the PA Police normally publish, since it has been zero for a long time.

CalAware's position would have been more meaningful if they had submitted their requests in writing and then complained if the material had not been provided within the statutory ten business days. Waltzing in to a police station and demanding information on the spot seems more "dilettantetish" than being dedicated to open government/access.

While sometimes less than perfect, the City of Palo Alto usually responds within ten days of requests if the City Clerk is informed of the information request.


Emily
another community
on Nov 30, 2007 at 12:55 pm
Emily, another community
on Nov 30, 2007 at 12:55 pm

"CalAware's position would have been more meaningful if they had submitted their requests in writing and then complained if the material had not been provided within the statutory ten business days. Waltzing in to a police station and demanding information on the spot seems more "dilettantetish" than being dedicated to open government/access."

Actually, if you read the original report, the information you are referring to WAS requested in writing, providing the ten days for the department to determine it's existence and their willingness to release it (in other words, they had up to ten days to make a determination about the request). There was a SEPARATE oral request that asked for three items, all of which are immediately accessible (either on computer or in regularly kept files).

Also, no departments were downgraded for items that they do not regularly keep; only if they kept it, but unlawfully denied access to it.

I urge you to re-read the original report and become familiar with the actual circumstances and methodology of that project. www.calaware.org


More-Open-Access
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Nov 30, 2007 at 2:40 pm
More-Open-Access, Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Nov 30, 2007 at 2:40 pm

> I urge you to re-read the original report and
> become familiar with the actual circumstances
> and methodology of that project. www.calaware.org

Having spoken to the CalAware project directly about this, (if memory serves) the voice on the other end of the telephone said that they asked initially asked for the material orally, then submitted the questions in writing. Palo Alto did not respond to all of the questions within the required ten days, as it turned out.



Emily
another community
on Dec 1, 2007 at 10:28 pm
Emily, another community
on Dec 1, 2007 at 10:28 pm

"...the voice on the other end of the telephone..."

That would have been me. I'm happy to take your call again anytime.


Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Post a comment

Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.