Neil Shapiro, Attorney for Transparency in Government: ‘This was never about money, it was about open government and making the city follow the law or pay the consequences’

ABSTRACT:  On Tuesday, August 5, 2014, attorney Neil Shapiro, representing Petitioner Transparency in Government, an unincorporated association of individuals, filed a PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE in TRANSPARENCY IN GOVERNMENT, an unincorporated association, Petitioner, v. CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA, and Does 1 through 10, inclusive Respondents, Case No.: 128766 on August 5, 2014 in SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF MONTEREY. The PETITION alleged violations of the California Public Records Act, Government Code §§ 6250 el seq. (the "PRA''), specifically “Respondent City failed to perform its duties in that regard by refusing to provide Petitioner access to, or copies of, documents requested.” “On July 10, 2014, Petitioner submitted to City by email a request (the "Request") "pursuant to the provisions of the Public Records Act" for ' access to and copies of (1) all requests made pursuant to the Public Records Act and received by the City of Carmel during the period January 1, 2014, through June 30,2014, (2) the responses, if any, to each of the requests referenced in ( 1 ), and (3) records reflecting the amount of legal fees incurred by the City of Carmel with respect to the requests referenced in (1), individually and in the aggregate. Two days later, on Thursday, August 7, 2014, “the city had provided Shapiro all of the documents — about 80 public records requests in all. They also gave him the data on the amount of tax dollars the city spent to comply with the requests. City attorney Don Freeman reached a deal with Shapiro to pay him $435 in court costs and $1,800 in attorney’s fees. In exchange, Shapiro will drop the suit,” according to reporting in The Carmel Pine Cone. “Shapiro maintained in the lawsuit that the city’s delay in complying with the Public Records Act was a “stalling tactic” that lacked legal justification and violated the law. In speculating as to Carmel’s motive in withholding the information, Shapiro had said he believed officials did not want to disclose how the city responded to the six months’ worth of PRA requests his clients requested. “I have doubts that the City of Carmel is following the Public Records Act with any great frequency,” Shapiro said Thursday before the agreement was reached. “And the best way to determine whether it’s playing straight is to look at the requests [the city has] received and by looking at its responses.” The PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE document is embedded.

Transparency in Government Petition for Writ of Mandate

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF MONTEREY
TRANSPARENCY IN GOVERNMENT, an unincorporated association, Petitioner, V. CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA, and 15 Does 1 through 10, inclusive Respondents.
Case No.: 128766
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE

SUMMARY

WHEREFORE, PETITIONER PRAYS AS FOLLOWS:

1. That this Court issue an Alternative Writ of Mandate, commanding Respondent City to allow the inspection of, and upon payment of the statutory fee to provide copies of, all requests made pursuant to the Public Records Act and received by the City of Carmel during the period January 1, 2014, through June 30. 2014, (2) the responses, if any, to each of the requests referenced in (1), and (3) records reflecting the amount of legal fees incurred by the City of Carmel with respect to the requests referenced in (1 ), individually and in the aggregate, or to show cause before this Court at a date and time to be specified by the Court why it has not done so, and why it should not be compelled to do so; and

2. That on the return of the Alternative Writ and the hearing of this Petition, this Court issue its Peremptory Writ of Mandate commanding Respondent City to allow inspection of and,upon payment of the statutory fee to provide copies of, all requests made pursuant to the Public Records Act and received by the City of Carmel during the period January 1, 20 I 4, through June 30,2014, (2) the responses, if any, to each of the requests referenced in (1). and (3) records reflecting the amount of legal fees incurred by the City of Carmel with respect to the requests referenced in (1 ), individually and in the aggregate.

3. For an award of attorney's fees to Petitioners pursuant to Government Code §6259;

4. For costs of suit incurred herein; and

5. For such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.

REFERENCE:
CITY HIT WITH ANOTHER LAWSUIT OVER ACCESS TO PUBLIC RECORDS, By KELLY NIX, The Carmel Pine Cone, August 8, 2014, 15A & 24A