DHS Transit Security Grant
| Submitted | Sept. 12, 2013 |
MuckRock users can file, duplicate, track, and share public records requests like this one. Learn more.
Communications
From: Parker Higgins
To Whom It May Concern:
Pursuant to the California's Sunshine Amendment (Cal. Const. Art. I, § 3(b)), I hereby request the following records:
This is a request to Bay Area Rapid Transit for all documents regarding the application for and award of the recent $12.8 million Department of Homeland Security Transit Security Grant for security upgrades to the Transbay Tube described in this press release: http://www.bart.gov/news/articles/2013/news20130823.aspx
I also request that, if appropriate, fees be waived as I believe this request is in the public interest. The requested documents will be made available to the general public free of charge as part of the public information service at MuckRock.com, processed by a representative of the news media/press and is made in the process of news gathering and not for commercial usage.
In the event that fees cannot be waived, I would be grateful if you would inform me of the total charges in advance of fulfilling my request. I would prefer the request filled electronically, by e-mail attachment if available or CD-ROM if not.
Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation in this matter. I look forward to receiving your response to this request within 10 business days, as the statute requires.
Sincerely,
Parker Higgins
From: MuckRock.com
To Whom It May Concern:
I wanted to follow up on the following Freedom of Information request, copied below, and originally submitted on Aug. 26, 2013. Please let me know when I can expect to receive a response, or if further clarification is needed.
Thank you for your help.
From: MuckRock
Hello,
This request has been sent to BART GM Crunican without reply. Please confirm receipt.
Thank you.
From: Kenneth A Duron
Parker Higgins,
Your request for information has been received and will be processed under
the California Public Records Act. I believe you earlier email to the
General Manager was never received due to an incorrect email address.
Thank you.
From: San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District
The request has been rejected, with the agency stating that the information or document(s) requested are exempt from disclosure.
From: San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District
I am out of the office until 10/07/2013.
Should you require immediate assistance please contact Patricia Wlliams at
pwillia@bart.gov, 510.464.6084 or Jacqueline Edwards at jedward@bart.gov;
510.464.6086. Thank you.
Note: This is an automated response to your message "[APPEAL] Freedom of
Information Request: DHS Transit Security Grant" sent on 10/02/2013
08:06:05 AM.
This is the only notification you will receive while this person is away.
From: Parker Higgins
Dear Mr. Duron,
Thank you for your response to my August 23, 2013 request for documents regarding the application for and award of the $12.8 million Department of Homeland Security Transit Security Grant to BART.
Section 6253(a) of the California Public Records Act requires that any "reasonably segregable portion of a record shall be available for inspection by any person requesting the record after deletion of the portions that are exempted by law." In withholding all documents, you have cited Government Code section 6254(k) and Evidence Code section 1040, suggesting that portions of responsive documents are exempt from disclosure. Notwithstanding those exemptions, Bay Area Rapid Transit has an obligation to produce non-exempt documents or portions of documents.
In light of that, it seems BART is withholding responsive documents that are not exempt from disclosure. As one example, the press release titled "BART awarded transit security funds for Transbay Tube security improvements" and issued on August 23, 2013, is one such responsive document.
Additionally, should BART have been copied on the letter from a congressional delegation cited in that press release and, according to the Department of Homeland Security Congressional Log June 2013, delivered to the DHS on June 28, 2013, that letter is also a responsive document. And any board letter that appeared in the public docket would also be responsive and part of the public record, pursuant to the California Public Records Act and the Brown Act.
Finally, BART communications with lobbyists from CJ Lake LLC, including Emily Bacque, James Copeland, and Lynnette Jacquez, may also be responsive and thus should likely be turned over, according to the Lobbying Report filed by that firm.
BART has a legal obligation not just to its ridership, a group of which I proudly count myself a member, but to the taxpaying citizens who are funding its improvement programs. Infrastructure security is obviously critically important, but cannot be invoked to issue blanket denials to requests for information. A measure of transparency is essential to ensure that taxpayer funds are not misused.
Sincerely,
Parker Higgins
From: Parker Higgins
Hello,
Please see my public records appeal below, which I sent to Mr. Duron yesterday but am now forwarding in light of his absence from office for several days. Please refer to the attached rejection letter for my public records request.
Thank you.
==========
From Parker Higgins to San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District on Oct. 2, 2013:
Dear Mr. Duron,
Thank you for your response to my August 23, 2013 request for documents regarding the application for and award of the $12.8 million Department of Homeland Security Transit Security Grant to BART.
Section 6253(a) of the California Public Records Act requires that any "reasonably segregable portion of a record shall be available for inspection by any person requesting the record after deletion of the portions that are exempted by law." In withholding all documents, you have cited Government Code section 6254(k) and Evidence Code section 1040, suggesting that portions of responsive documents are exempt from disclosure. Notwithstanding those exemptions, Bay Area Rapid Transit has an obligation to produce non-exempt documents or portions of documents.
In light of that, it seems BART is withholding responsive documents that are not exempt from disclosure. As one example, the press release titled "BART awarded transit security funds for Transbay Tube security improvements" and issued on August 23, 2013, is one such responsive document.
Additionally, should BART have been copied on the letter from a congressional delegation cited in that press release and, according to the Department of Homeland Security Congressional Log June 2013, delivered to the DHS on June 28, 2013, that letter is also a responsive document. And any board letter that appeared in the public docket would also be responsive and part of the public record, pursuant to the California Public Records Act and the Brown Act.
Finally, BART communications with lobbyists from CJ Lake LLC, including Emily Bacque, James Copeland, and Lynnette Jacquez, may also be responsive and thus should likely be turned over, according to the Lobbying Report filed by that firm.
BART has a legal obligation not just to its ridership, a group of which I proudly count myself a member, but to the taxpaying citizens who are funding its improvement programs. Infrastructure security is obviously critically important, but cannot be invoked to issue blanket denials to requests for information. A measure of transparency is essential to ensure that taxpayer funds are not misused.
Sincerely,
Parker Higgins
From: Patricia Williams
Mr. Higgins,
Your request has been received and is being processed.
-------------------------------------------------------
Patricia K. Williams
Assistant District Secretary
300 Lakeside Drive, 23rd Floor
P. O. Box 12688
Oakland, CA 94604-2688
(510) 464-6084
fax (510) 464-6011
From: requests@muckrock.com
To: Kduron@bart.gov,
Cc: pwillia@bart.gov, jedward@bart.gov
Date: 10/03/2013 02:28 PM
Subject: Follow up to Freedom of Information Request: DHS Transit
Security Grant
October 3, 2013
San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District
Bay Area Rapid Transit District
Office of the General Manager
P.O. Box 12688
Oakland CA 94604-2688
This is a follow up to a previous request:
Hello,
Please see my public records appeal below, which I sent to Mr. Duron
yesterday but am now forwarding in light of his absence from office for
several days. Please refer to the attached rejection letter for my public
records request.
Thank you.
==========
From Parker Higgins to San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District on
Oct. 2, 2013:
Dear Mr. Duron,
Thank you for your response to my August 23, 2013 request for documents
regarding the application for and award of the $12.8 million Department of
Homeland Security Transit Security Grant to BART.
Section 6253(a) of the California Public Records Act requires that any
"reasonably segregable portion of a record shall be available for
inspection by any person requesting the record after deletion of the
portions that are exempted by law." In withholding all documents, you have
cited Government Code section 6254(k) and Evidence Code section 1040,
suggesting that portions of responsive documents are exempt from
disclosure. Notwithstanding those exemptions, Bay Area Rapid Transit has an
obligation to produce non-exempt documents or portions of documents.
In light of that, it seems BART is withholding responsive documents that
are not exempt from disclosure. As one example, the press release titled
"BART awarded transit security funds for Transbay Tube security
improvements" and issued on August 23, 2013, is one such responsive
document.
Additionally, should BART have been copied on the letter from a
congressional delegation cited in that press release and, according to the
Department of Homeland Security Congressional Log June 2013, delivered to
the DHS on June 28, 2013, that letter is also a responsive document. And
any board letter that appeared in the public docket would also be
responsive and part of the public record, pursuant to the California Public
Records Act and the Brown Act.
Finally, BART communications with lobbyists from CJ Lake LLC, including
Emily Bacque, James Copeland, and Lynnette Jacquez, may also be responsive
and thus should likely be turned over, according to the Lobbying Report
filed by that firm.
BART has a legal obligation not just to its ridership, a group of which I
proudly count myself a member, but to the taxpaying citizens who are
funding its improvement programs. Infrastructure security is obviously
critically important, but cannot be invoked to issue blanket denials to
requests for information. A measure of transparency is essential to ensure
that taxpayer funds are not misused.
Sincerely,
Parker Higgins
---
On Oct. 2, 2013:
Dear Mr. Duron,
Thank you for your response to my August 23, 2013 request for documents
regarding the application for and award of the $12.8 million Department of
Homeland Security Transit Security Grant to BART.
Section 6253(a) of the California Public Records Act requires that any
"reasonably segregable portion of a record shall be available for
inspection by any person requesting the record after deletion of the
portions that are exempted by law." In withholding all documents, you have
cited Government Code section 6254(k) and Evidence Code section 1040,
suggesting that portions of responsive documents are exempt from
disclosure. Notwithstanding those exemptions, Bay Area Rapid Transit has an
obligation to produce non-exempt documents or portions of documents.
In light of that, it seems BART is withholding responsive documents that
are not exempt from disclosure. As one example, the press release titled
"BART awarded transit security funds for Transbay Tube security
improvements" and issued on August 23, 2013, is one such responsive
document.
Additionally, should BART have been copied on the letter from a
congressional delegation cited in that press release and, according to the
Department of Homeland Security Congressional Log June 2013, delivered to
the DHS on June 28, 2013, that letter is also a responsive document. And
any board letter that appeared in the public docket would also be
responsive and part of the public record, pursuant to the California Public
Records Act and the Brown Act.
Finally, BART communications with lobbyists from CJ Lake LLC, including
Emily Bacque, James Copeland, and Lynnette Jacquez, may also be responsive
and thus should likely be turned over, according to the Lobbying Report
filed by that firm.
BART has a legal obligation not just to its ridership, a group of which I
proudly count myself a member, but to the taxpaying citizens who are
funding its improvement programs. Infrastructure security is obviously
critically important, but cannot be invoked to issue blanket denials to
requests for information. A measure of transparency is essential to ensure
that taxpayer funds are not misused.
Sincerely,
Parker Higgins
---
On Oct. 2, 2013:
I am out of the office until 10/07/2013.
Should you require immediate assistance please contact Patricia Wlliams at
pwillia@bart.gov, 510.464.6084 or Jacqueline Edwards at jedward@bart.gov;
510.464.6086. Thank you.
Note: This is an automated response to your message "[APPEAL] Freedom of
Information Request: DHS Transit Security Grant" sent on 10/02/2013
08:06:05 AM.
This is the only notification you will receive while this person is away.
---
On Sept. 20, 2013:
The request has been rejected, with the agency stating that the information
or document(s) requested are exempt from disclosure.
---
On Sept. 12, 2013:
Parker Higgins,
Your request for information has been received and will be processed under
the California Public Records Act. I believe you earlier email to the
General Manager was never received due to an incorrect email address.
Thank you.
---
On Sept. 12, 2013:
Hello,
This request has been sent to BART GM Crunican without reply. Please
confirm receipt.
Thank you.
---
On Sept. 10, 2013:
To Whom It May Concern:
I wanted to follow up on the following Freedom of Information request,
copied below, and originally submitted on Aug. 26, 2013. Please let me know
when I can expect to receive a response, or if further clarification is
needed.
Thank you for your help.
---
On Aug. 23, 2013:
To Whom It May Concern:
Pursuant to the California's Sunshine Amendment (Cal. Const. Art. I, § 3
(b)), I hereby request the following records:
This is a request to Bay Area Rapid Transit for all documents regarding the
application for and award of the recent $12.8 million Department of
Homeland Security Transit Security Grant for security upgrades to the
Transbay Tube described in this press release:
http://www.bart.gov/news/articles/2013/news20130823.aspx
I also request that, if appropriate, fees be waived as I believe this
request is in the public interest. The requested documents will be made
available to the general public free of charge as part of the public
information service at MuckRock.com, processed by a representative of the
news media/press and is made in the process of news gathering and not for
commercial usage.
In the event that fees cannot be waived, I would be grateful if you would
inform me of the total charges in advance of fulfilling my request. I would
prefer the request filled electronically, by e-mail attachment if available
or CD-ROM if not.
Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation in this matter. I
look forward to receiving your response to this request within 10 business
days, as the statute requires.
Sincerely,
Parker Higgins
Filed via MuckRock.com
From: MuckRock.com
To Whom It May Concern:
I wanted to follow up on the following Freedom of Information request, copied below, and originally submitted on Sept. 12, 2013. Please let me know when I can expect to receive a response, or if further clarification is needed.
Thank you for your help.
From: San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District
An acknowledgement letter, stating the request is being processed.
From: San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District
A letter stating that the request appeal has been rejected.
Files
pages