A more in-depth look at the statewide audit that bashed law enforcement agencies for inadequately responding to public records requests — making headlines in the process — reveals inconsistent scoring, a small sample size, and grading criteria not based strictly on public records laws.

The Palo Alto Police Department scored an F- on the audit, which was administered by Californians Aware, a non-profit organization dedicated to enhancing open government and information exchange.

"It seems the survey was somewhat arbitrary," Senior Deputy City Attorney Donald Larkin said.

The audits were performed by journalists who did not immediately reveal their affiliations. The scores were based on the agency's response to a single request.

The auditors visited agencies on Dec. 4, requested several items, and then left a written request to provide additional information.

Palo Alto lost points because the auditor was asked his name, even though the city employee who requested it admitted she was just curious. According to CalAware's audit methodology, "normal human curiosity was not to be held against the department."

In several cases, there were discrepancies between Palo Alto's grade and those of other agencies providing the same or less helpful answers. According to the auditor's scorecard, Palo Alto lost five points for saying it does not have a "death in custody" report. But the San Rafael Police Department — which received an A-, the top grade received by only three agencies — provided the same response and had no points deducted.

Palo Alto lost 24 points for providing crime and arrest information online rather than having it available for immediate copying. Dixon Police Department, which also scored an A-, lost only four points for saying it did not have the information at all.

"They were hoping we'd have open records, but not too open records," Larkin said.

A call to Californians Aware was not answered.

The audit and its shocking grades raised eyebrows in a city accustomed to besting its peers.

"I was alarmed by it," Councilwoman LaDoris Cordell said. At Tuesday's council meeting, she asked the staff to prepare a response.

Larkin said staff will have a report soon, although probably not at Monday's council meeting.

He said the city in general "certainly strives to be" open and accessible to citizens and is more open than other cities that received better grades.

He said many requests for public information can be handled by city departments, but more complex or potentially confusing requests are sent to the city attorney's office. Larkin said the attorneys also like to be informed if the department plans to deny a request, to ensure there is a legal reason for denial.

He said he and police staff tried to respond to the written request filed by the CalAware auditor, but had trouble getting in touch with him. He said he sent out a letter to the auditor Dec. 18 responding to the requests. In the report on Palo Alto, however, the auditor effectively ended the inquiry Dec. 14, Larkin noted.

Larkin said he thinks audits can be useful and illuminate problem areas. Even the CalAware audit, which he said he does not consider "a good audit," showed the need for additional training.

Police Sgt. Sandra Brown, who manages media inquires for the department, said she isn't losing sleep over the audit.

"We have a great media/police relationship; we go overboard," Brown said, adding she thinks the city puts out more press releases than much-larger San Francisco.

The full audit is available at www.calaware.org.