Email dialogue with Andrea Kipp and Bertha Duarte of PCSO Records
On 11/4/2010 at 21:45, I wrote to Andrea Kipp: (note I have edited the original version of my email slightly)
Dear Ms. Kipp,
Effective, expeditious customer service has long since passed with respect to this request. I feel rationally objective in stating this.
At this stage, legal compliance might be a more appropriate milestone. As such, I respectfully request that you please provide the records without further delay.
12/8/2009 - record request submitted via fax to the Superior Court
12/9/2009 - request forwarded to PCSO; phone call with PCSO: payment determined, expressed importance of record preservation
12/16/2009 - @ 15:39, PCSO accepted certified mail - written request and payment per instructions given over phone
12/28/2009 - met with Ms. Duarte in person during business hours; received a partial response to request:
- 911 recordings were not available at that time
- Ms. Duarte indicated she had not heard from Communication Center; put in another request immediately while we were present
- Reviewed original witness statements with Duarte, and specifically requested meta-data pertaining to these statements, namely:
- A timestamp corresponding to the date/time each statement was "entered into the system"
- The name of the PCSO employee responsible for entering them into the system
- A timestamp indicating when the partition containing these records was created for the county attorney's office
- I also reiterated our open request for the 911 recordings, and the desire for the same specific meta-data pertaining to each of those records as well
1/14/2010 (January 14, 2010) - Ms. Duarte called me to inform that the original 081214130 911 recording was destroyed, but that a copy was produced onto a single CD (along with other requested audio) and mailed to me. The receipt for this dissemination does not accurately reflect of the content of the CD disseminated to me, nor does the receipt bare a dissemination number.
9/21/2010 at 3:36pm - I emailed the current authority on metadata in Arizona, David Lake v. City of Phoenix
10/27/2010 at 12:07pm - date/time found on the screenshot emailed to Ms. Duarte by Ms. Korb in response to my request
10/27/2010 at 12:21pm - timestamp on follow-up email to Ms. Duarte, simply inquiring:
Have you heard back from IT? Can you tell me the name of the person to whom you've submitted the request?
11/3/2010 at 3:55pm - having received no response to my 1st follow-up, I emailed 2nd follow-up inquiry, cc'ing interested parties,
including pcsorecords personnel.
11/4/2010 at 10:18am - finally received a response, but unfortunately, not one that fulfills my initial request.
The following rudimentary portion of my original request of 12/8/2009 still remains denied:
- creation date/time of the electronic record of each witness statements (2 of them)
- the person responsible for "entering them" - which would correspond to the "creation date/time
Access to a public record is deemed denied if a custodian fails to promptly respond.
The law requires prompt disclosure. A.R.S. § 39-121.01(D)(1). What constitutes prompt depends on what is reasonable under the circumstances. The Arizona Court of Appeals recently applied the Webster's Dictionary definition, which defines prompt as "quick to act or to do what is required" or "done, spoken, etc., at once or without delay."
Arizona law requires all officers and public bodies to maintain records reasonably necessary to provide an accurate accounting of their official activities and of any government funded activities. This is precisely the nature of this request - an accurate accounting.
David Lake v. City of Phoenix
Issue: Is metadata (information describing the history and characteristics of an electronic document) a public record subject to disclosure under Arizona's public records law?
The court determined that meta-data within an electronic document is a part of the document as much as the text itself and does not exist as an external record, separate from the document. The court further determined that Arizona law allows any individual to view the "real record" and not just copies of the record.
SUMMARY
I fail to see your perspective in attributing my "continued questions" on this matter as being "due to the type of format that our department provides reports, etc."
I'm open to any format at this point - as long as the content is provided and is reasonably accessible... another language, ticker-tape, smoke rings... Characterizing the attachment emailed today as a complete response - the "format" being the issue, and my problem - is simply not fair.
Choosing to respond in this manner is incredibly inefficient in light of the much more practical and legal response, and only creates a darker speculation of the reasons for rejecting it. I see no reason to speculate into reasons behind my persistence, but I can assure you that the "format" of any PCSO response to date is not a driving force here.
I respectfully suggest a more constructive approach such as simply calling Pamela Korb to request that she drag open the "name column", take a new screenshot, and email it to me. I pray that you agree.
Yours truly,
J. Edward Petrik
attorney-in-fact for Danny Hicks
On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 4:16 PM, Andrea Kipp wrote:
11-4-2010 @
Mr. Petrik
Good Afternoon. The Departmental goal is to provide effective customer service and expedite all request in a timely manner, and as Records Manager of the Records Unit, I have noted that you have had continued questions from your initial request of December 28, 2009 on matters involving of Danny Hicks, this may be apparently due to the type of format that our department provides reports, etc.
To provide more of a manageable and an effective time managment for all other request received by person's, the following is a status of your request received today (Nov 4, 2010):
Your Question: Could you kindly ask Ms. Korb to provide a screen shot with the "Name" column expanded so that the content is not truncated?
PCSO RESPONSE: On 11-4-2010 @ 1018 hours, Mrs Duarte provided you this document. The office shall not be required to create records which do not other wise exist. However, existing records may be copied in such a manner as to provide the requesting party with a unrestricted portion of the any record, therefore you request for expantion will fall within this criteria.
Your Question: Could you ask Ms. Korb to provide a similar screen shot of the directory of files relating to 081214130?
PCSO Response: Ms. Korb is not a Sheriff's Office employee, but works in IT, therefore Mrs. Duarte will be submitting a work order and when the document is received, it will be provided and emailed in the same format just as Mrs. Duarte emailed you today. The office shall not be required to create records which do not other wise exist. However, existing records may be copied in such a manner as to provide the requesting party with a unrestricted portion of the any record, therefore you request for expantion will fall within this criteria.
And lastly:
Your Question: Please forward records of disposal from the Communication Center as soon as possible. Apparently the Communication Center maintains some of its own records. Do they have a public records request contact person/number?
PCSO RESPONSE: The public records request will be submitted to PCSO Records. Our Unit has recently been advised by Communication Supervisor-Lynda Ellsworth that the disposal records do not exist within the Communication Center, they simply re-record and re-use the DVD.
Therefore the only pending request at this time is the "Directory Files relating to #081214130". All other request you have submitted have been successfully provided to you in a timely manner.
Should you have further questions or matter's regarding your initial request of December 28, 2009 involving Danny Hicks, please be advised that you are now being referred to communicate with Pinal County Attorney Wendy Peterson at (520) 866-6271 or wendy.petersen@pinalcountyaz.
Thank you.
Andrea Kipp #341
Records Manager
On 11/4/2010 2:30 PM, I wrote to Bertha Duarte:
Thank you, Bertha. I see the confusion with question #1 stemmed from semantics.
RE: Pamela Korb's screen shot. The "name" column has been truncated, and thus leaves my request unanswered.
I have a solution, however. The second row from the bottom appears to be a witness statement entry. Perhaps it refers to both witness statements.
- Could you kindly ask Ms. Korb to provide a screen shot with the "Name" column expanded so that the content is not truncated?
- Could you ask Ms. Korb to provide a similar screen shot of the directory of files relating to 081214130?
And lastly:
- Please forward the records of disposal from the Communication Center as soon as possible. Apparently the Communication Center maintains some of its own records. Do they have a public records request contact person/number?
It appears that you've been busy recently, based on the length of time to receive a response to recent requests. If Ms. Korb can expedite the screen shots by emailing them directly to me, I would appreciate this.
Thank you and have a good afternoon,
J. Edward Petrik
______________________________
NOTICE: I request these records under the provisions of U.S.C.A. Section 552 and 1 C.F.R. Section 456.1 et seq.
If all or any part of the request is denied, please cite the specific exemption(s) which you think justifies
your refusal to release the information, and inform me of the appeal procedures available to me under the law.
NOTICE: I request these records under the provisions of U.S.C.A. Section 552 and 1 C.F.R. Section 456.1 et seq.
If all or any part of the request is denied, please cite the specific exemption(s) which you think justifies
your refusal to release the information, and inform me of the appeal procedures available to me under the law.
On 11/4/2010 at 10:18 AM, Bertha Duarte wrote:
In regards to question #1 it reads:
- Could you provide a record of disposal for each cad call pertaining to #081225046, #081214129 and #081214130? I'm most interested in a date/timestamp and the name/badge # of the party responsible for ordering the disposal, however I'd like a full record that contains all the usual recorded data upon disposal.
Response: CAD Calls have not been disposed of from our Records Division. We do retention according to the AZ State Archives policies. Now as for the recordings of any audio maintained by the Communication Center and their policy of retention is handled by that department. I will forward your question to the Supervisor as to what record of disposal they maintain.
Questions #3:
- When Ms. Navarette scanned/entered the witness statements into Spillman on 12/16/2008, did her activity get timestamped, creating a record of the date/time of entry? If so, please provide these times. (I will call Ms. Kuykendall for the partition time, but a scan/entry time would prove more useful to me.)
Response: See attached screen shot of all attachments scanned in for case #081214129. Provided by IT Personnel Pamela Korb.
Thank you
Bertha N. Duarte #791
Pinal County Sheriff's Office
Records Division
Pinal County Sheriff's Office
Records Division
Hello Ms. Duarte,
Please refer to Question #1 and Question #3.
- Could you please clarify your response to Question #1.
- Could you please give me a status update regarding Question #3.
I would appreciate knowing the IT department employee you've contacted to answer this request.
Thank you and have a wonderful day,
J. Edward Petrik
NOTICE: I request these records under the provisions of U.S.C.A. Section 552 and 1 C.F.R. Section 456.1 et seq.
If all or any part of the request is denied, please cite the specific exemption(s) which you think justifies
your refusal to release the information, and inform me of the appeal procedures available to me under the law.
On 10/21/2010 at 2:09 PM, Bertha Duarte wrote:
Question #1: Records #081225046, 081214129 and 081214130 have not been disposed, cad calls have not been disposed of according to Arizona State Library and Archives www.lib.az.us/archives/email.cfm
Question #2: Cad call #081214130 was not partitioned for the County Attorneys Office, nor was it requested by their Agency.
Questions #3: I will have to forward this request to the IT Department and inquire if their office can provide a date/time of entry regarding witness statements for case #081214129.
I will advise once they send me that information.
Bertha N. Duarte #791
Pinal County Sheriff's Office
Records Division
