-----Original Message-----
From: Varpetian, Lucy [mailto:LVarpetian@ci.glendale.ca.us]
Sent:
Thursday, January 25, 2007 11:26 AM
To: ba@fieldworks.net
Cc: Kassakhian, Ardashes; Buchanan, Rita
Subject: RE: CPRA PPP Callers ID

 

Mr. Allen:

 

There are no records responsive to your request.

 

Lucy Varpetian

Senior Assistant City Attorney

Office of the Glendale City Attorney

613 East Broadway, Suite 220

Glendale, CA  91206

Tel: 818-548-2080

Fax: 818-547-3402

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Barry [mailto:ba@fieldworks.net]
Sent:
Wednesday, December 13, 2006 8:48 PM
To: Kassakhian, Ardashes; Varpetian, Lucy; Buchanan, Rita
Subject: CPRA PPP Callers ID

 

 

 

 

VANGUARD

POB 11202, Glendale, CA 91226

818 243 1502 – vanguard1@charter.net

Contributions are tax deductible – Rev. Proc. 92-85, 1992-42 I.R.B. 32

VIGILANCE leads to ACCOUNTABILITY

 

December 14, 2006

Ardy Kassakhian, City Clerk

City of Glendale, CA

613 E. Broadway

Glendale, CA 91206

 

  Email 


RE: Public Records Act Request Reference: PPP Caller ID, Call Screening

Dear Mr. Kassakhian:

 

Pursuant to my rights under the California Public Records Act (Government Code Section 6250 et seq.) and the California Constitution, as amended by passage of Prop 59 on November 3, 2004, I am writing to request inspection of the following records, which I understand to be in the possession of your agency:

 

Provide policy, procedures and practices on call screening and or the use of caller ID or other such trade name used to identify names, addresses and other information of those calling into the live GTV6 program, “Behind the Badge”.

 

I ask for a determination on this request within 10 days of your receipt of it, and an even earlier reply if you can make that determination without having to review the record(s) in question.

 

If you determine that any or all or the information is exempt from disclosure, I ask that you reconsider that determination in view of Prop 59, which has amended the state Constitution to require that all exemptions be "narrowly construed." Prop 59 may modify or overturn authorities on which you have relied in the past.

 

If you nonetheless determine that the requested records are subject to a still-valid exemption, I would further request that: (1) you exercise your discretion to disclose some or all of the records notwithstanding the exemption; and (2) that, with respect to records containing both exempt and non-exempt content, you redact the exempt content and disclose the rest.

 

You must provide assistance by helping to identify records and information relevant to the request and suggesting ways to overcome any practical basis for denying access.

 

Finally, should you deny part or this entire request, you are required to provide a written response describing the legal authority or authorities on which you rely. Please also address the question whether Prop 59 requires disclosure even though authorities predating Prop 59 may appear to support your exemption claim.

 

Records concerning litigation are exempt only until the claim is resolved or settled. Upon disposition all records including court records and those pre-dating the suit are public.

 

If I can provide any clarification that will help expedite your attention to this request, please contact me at the number above.  I ask that you notify me of any duplication costs so that I may decide which records I want copied.

 

I am sending a copy of this letter to your legal advisor to help encourage a speedy determination, and I would likewise be happy to discuss my request with him or his designee at any time.

 

Thank you for your time and attention to this matter.

 

Sincerely,

Barry Allen