Jeff Higley's Public Records Request to Deyna Hearn

On or about June 20, 2006, SMC student Jeff Higley sent a certified letter to Deyna Hearn, Assistant Dean of Student Life at Santa Monica College. In his letter, Mr. Higley has requested that Ms. Hearn comply with the California Public Records Act and produce those public records in the custody and control of the Office of Student Life. Mr. Higley relies on case law and legal decisions warranting such disclosure as well as SMC's own Board Policy governing prompt disclosure. Mr. Higley copied his letter to Dr. Robert Adams and President Chui L. Tsang. You can view an Adobe PDF copy of his letter HERE.

In Mr. Higley's accompanying public records request to SMC, he lists 113 distinct requests for copies and inspection of records in a 19-page document. He asks, in part, for minutes and agendas dating as far back as 1988. His records requests span various committees including the Finance Committee, the Activities Committee, the Inter-Club Council’s Constitution Committee, Inter-Club Council’s Activities Committee, the Inter-Club Council’s Publicity Committee, the Associated Student board of directors’ ad hoc committee meetings, and the Associated Student board of directors’ Election Committee meetings, including others. Mr. Higley is exceptionally thorough in his requests, including regular meetings, special meetings, and emergency meetings. You can view his complete public records request in Adobe PDF format HERE.

Mr. Higley is perhaps one of the most politically active students at SMC, actually taking the time to not only regularly attend many of these meetings, but to make his voice heard and to video record these meetings so that other students can be informed of the political decision making that affects us all as students. Mr. Higley has also written a great deal about the Office of Student Life on his politically conscious blog, The Siege Online. I urge all students to take the time to read his intelligently written and well-researched blog.

Given SMC's reluctance with complying with the California Public Records Act in the past with requests from the SMC Faculty Association and students such as myself, it will be interesting to see if SMC's administrators will actually come through with Mr. Higley's request. In the past, SMC has lowered itself to use intimidation by the SMCPD campus police and wrongful disciplinary proceedings to scare students away from its sacrosanct public records. When several SMC students went to seek public records on or about August 19, 2005, SMCPD Officer Willie Malone was called to prevent such disclosure. He states to us the following:

MALONE: I'm going to say it one time. She is going to make an appointment with you for the necessary records that's necessary that you see. Yes, it says in the record there that it's available for public display at any time during normal business office [hours], but they're not available. Okay?

MANTTARI: So they're not complying with the law?

MALONE: They're not complying with the law right now. Because it's not available for what you need, okay? You understand me?

Nowhere in the California Public Records Act does it state that the person wishing to view public records needs to state a reason for such inspection or copies. Access to public information is not a privilege contingent on any purpose of those wishing to enforce the law, but a fundamental right. As set forth in California Government Code section 6250:

In enacting this chapter, the Legislature, mindful of the right of individuals to privacy, finds and declares that access to information concerning the conduct of the people's business is a fundamental and necessary right of every person in this state.

According to the website entitled First Amendment org, they cite under the CPRA:

The people of this state do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them. The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist they may retain control over the instruments they have created.

However, there is a difference with what the law states and what actually occurs when most people of this state seek public records. According to SMC Dean of Judicial Affairs, Judith Penchansky, she claims that requests for public records are allegedly "disruptive" to the learning process of SMC. Penchansky has been named in our lawsuit under the CPRA as a defendant for failing to disclose vital public records belonging to the school. Additionally, despite numerous written requests for student records, disclosable under FERPA and the California Education Code, Ms. Penchansky has repeatedly failed to disclose student records, including disciplinary records, claiming they are not "appropriate" for a student to view, despite the fact that the law states otherwise.

Even SMC student Jeremy Meyer criticized me for requesting public records from Santa Monica College. In a letter to SMC allegedly dated March 2, 2006, which SMC is attempting to use against me to justify its two-year immediate wrongful suspension for seeking public records and writing about my struggles to obtain such records on the SAVE SMC blog, Mr. Meyer writes:

Regarding this law suite [sic] she has filled [sic] and is to this day pursuing for her curiosity to look at SMC records that she has no business to look at. Yes they may be public records, but for SMC to give her the right to see the files she still needs an excuse.

This mentality is quite disturbing coming from Mr. Meyer since he has taken the helm as the Editor-in-Chief of SMC's student newspaper, The Corsair. First, because Mr. Meyer is the head of this publication and a journalism student, yet he cannot obviously write proper English. Second, because as an alleged journalist, he is under a duty to research the law before making such an absurd statement. If Mr. Meyer had taken a few moments of his time, he would see that Rocco Versaci v. The Superior Court of San Diego (Palomar Community College District) makes clear the following:

The Act provides for the inspection of public records maintained by state and local agencies. (§ 6253, subd. (a).) "The Legislature enacted the [Act] in 1968 to give the public access to information in possession of public agencies in furtherance of the notion that government should be accountable for its actions and, . . . to verify accountability, individuals must have access to government files. [Citation.]

This decision is supported by the California Attorney General's Office that supports the citizen's right to monitor its government:

In enacting the CPRA, the Legislature stated that access to information concerning the conduct of the public's business is a fundamental and necessary right for every person in the State. Cases interpreting the CPRA also have emphasized that its primary purpose is to give the public an opportunity to monitor the functioning of their government. The greater and more unfettered the public official's power, the greater the public's interest in monitoring the governmental action.

Despite all this case law and legislature, on or about August 18, 2005, SMC employee Pat Green again attempted to use SMCPD police force against us to deny access to public records when she stated the following to us:

Let me tell something right now. I'm gonna tell you something. You either turn your asses around now and get out or I call the police. What choice do you want?

It seems Pat Green was acting in typical fashion as other California public employees. In an online article entitled "Richmond Retains Secrecy Lead", dated July 25, 2004:

"Ask for routine public records at most Bay Area public agencies and you'll likely be met with suspicion, defensiveness, intimidation, needless delays, incompetence and ignorance,” says the article, and that certainly describes Richmond.

In another article entitled "Dealing with the City's Response to Your Discovery:"

The way some cities reply to Discoveries is a clear attempt to grind you down, run you around, and in general keep you so busy trying to get the information that you won't have the time or energy to really analyze it (assuming you are able to get it at all).

Yet another online article entitled "Environmental groups sue California water boards to force compliance with Public Records Act" cries:

"Government transparency is vital to democracy," said Iryna Kwasny, Director of RiverLaw. "The water boards' restrictive policies seriously burden all Californians, including environmental organizations, who wish to monitor the effectiveness of our state's water policies."

So, will Denya Hearn take a lesson from all of this and comply with Mr. Higley's public records request, or will she hide behind scant excuses such as those provided by Penchansky, Meyer, and Vice-President of Planning and Development Robert Sammis? Only time will tell whether Mr. Higley will be stonewalled or not.

-- Des Manttari,
Editor-in-Chief,
Phoenix Genesis

(c) 2006: Phoenix Genesis/MBS LP

Feel free to link or print this; just include the SAVE SMC URL: http://savesmc.blogspot.com/

Technorati Tags: Santa Monica College, Denya Hearn, public schools, Office of Student Life, legal, Jeff Higley, Judith Penchansky, Jeremy Meyer, lawsuit, Pat Green, News and politics, Willie Malone, California Public Records Act