The Compton Bulletin Online

Last Updated 2/7/07

Our Town:
Mothers of Sons Offers New Choices for Single Moms

Earl Ofari Hutchinson:
Why Blacks Won’t Necessarily Back Obama

CUSD: Lack of Personnel, Century-old Facilities Led to Absence of Heat at Local High School

Left-over Funds Funneled Into New Community Betterment Projects

Outdoor Classroom, Nature Park Along Compton Creek Unveiled

Dominguez High School Varsity Football-CIF Champions...Again!

Godwin Awarded Prestigious Clerk Designation

Tony Hawk Foundation Grants $10K for Compton Skate Park

Concrete ‘River’ Eyed as Los Angeles Wildlife Refuge

Board of Supervisors Appoints New Chief Administration Operator

Classifieds

HOME

City, Bulletin Reach Settlement for Violation of Public Records Act
City agrees to pay newspaper’s legal fees after failing to provide records relating to fees paid to outside attorneys

By Allison Jean Eaton
Bulletin Staff Writer

The cty of Compton and The Compton Bulletin have reached a settlement agreement after the city failed to turn over public records requested by the Bulletin in May 2006.

In lieu of litigation, the publishing company agreed to accept $2,000 from the city to go toward the $2,800 the newspaper racked up in attorney’s fees during The Bulletin’s nearly five-month struggle to acquire the documents.

The Bulletin submitted a public records request on May 10, 2006, seeking documents showing how much the city attorney’s office spent last year on outside legal counsel including:

• Copies of all contracts between the city and outside attorneys and/or law firms for legal services performed on behalf of the city between May 1, 2005 and May 1, 2006;

• All documents or check registers showing the total amount paid to outside attorneys and/or law firms for legal services performed on behalf of the city during the same period; and

• Copies of all requests for proposals, requests for quotations or requests for bids released by the city for performance of legal services by outside attorneys and/or law firms.

Failure to Disclose
Under the California Public Records Act, records must be produced 10 days from receipt of the request. In June, when the documents had not been produced, The Bulletin retained the law firm of Nordman Cormany Hair & Compton to file a petition under the CPRA and have a judge order the city to produce the documents. The attorney handling the case, Glen Dickinson, sent the city a letter last June regarding the legal action.

But instead of responding to the paper’s legal counsel, City Attorney LeGrand Clegg attempted to contact Bulletin Publisher Lisa Grace-Kellogg directly. According to General Manager Lucille Daniels, Clegg called the newspaper office asking for Grace-Kellogg’s cell phone number and, according to Grace-Kellogg, left a message saying he wanted to speak with her regarding the matter.

Because the city attorney knew the paper had legal representation, his actions violated California State Bar rules, which prohibit him from contacting a party he knows to be represented by counsel.

When Dickinson responded to Clegg’s call to Grace-Kellogg, the city attorney claimed the city had never received the records request in the first place. Dickinson granted the city an extension.

On June 23, 2006, a minimal number of documents consisting of a contract with the Law Offices of Merle Greene III and the resolution approving that agreement were turned over. No check registers or other evidence of payment to Greene or any other attorneys for legal services was furnished.

Since the initial response was incomplete on its face, the firm wrote to the city on July 10, 2006, highlighting the inadequate response. Three days later the city provided additional documents, but no invoices or other documentation provided to the city by outside attorneys was included. Also, the city did not provide copies of the check register, but rather stated that the check register is available for inspection.

Dickinson once again demanded copies of checks be produced.

And the rigmarole continued.

The City Attorney’s office then claimed that the documents were in various locations, and the city was having trouble locating them. According to Dickinson, Clegg at one point told him that he was having trouble producing the records because a Bulletin staff writer was keeping him tied up on the phone. He asked for another week-long extension.

Records Turned Over — Late
A week later the documents were finally produced, but more than four months late.

“[The city] certainly had an obligation that they did not fulfill in a timely manner and not until we sent several letters and made phone calls,” Dickinson said.

Grace-Kellogg said she’s shocked by the city’s inability to comply with the law. “I don’t know if it’s incompetence or arrogance, but the failure of the city attorney to comply with basic public records requirements is inexcusable.”

Because the CPRA applies to everyone living in the state — not just news organizations — the city’s inability to turn over records in a timely manner or turn over complete records is cause for concern, noted Bulletin general manager, Lucille Daniels. It effectively circumvents transparency in government and dissolves the people’s right to hold accountable those who govern them, she said.

“We have the resources to spend thousands of dollars compelling the city to comply with the law. But what about the average citizen who is denied access to public records?” asked Grace-Kellogg. “The City Attorney’s Office has to realize that compliance with the California Government Code is not optional.”

According to Dickinson, “the paper was certainly willing to enforce its legal rights in the courts.”

Calls to Clegg for comment were unreturned as of press time.”