The October 2009 California-Jiangsu agreement (or Memorandum of Understanding or MOU) calls for several regulatory California regulatory agencies (Cal EPA, ARB, CEC, CPUC), on behalf of California, to cooperate with their Jiangsu counterparts in several areas of energy efficiency, policy, energy standards, reducing GHG emissions, technology, etc.
Jiangsu Province is immediately adjacent to Shanghai and has emerged as a industrial giant, including laptop, semiconductor and now solar manufacturing. GE, for example, recently announced it is developing a smart grid demonstration center in Jiangsu. Numerous State officials and several private groups related to energy cooperation have traveled to Jiangsu, China before and since the MOU was signed.
Invoking the California Public Records Act (CPRA)
The request to the Governor's Office used the California Public Records Act, which is intended to allow the public access to public records to ensure government is functioning properly. The CPRA does allow certain public records to be withheld (or 'exempt') but this limitation is not absolute: the State may voluntarily release certain public records even if there is an allowable exception. However, the act is very clear that disclosure is preferred option and the burden is on the Government. (Some records like social security numbers or home address are naturally private and were not requested. The state's business is what should be public.)
However, the Governor's Office refused to voluntarily release any documents. This has raised a few eyebrows in Sacramento.
The CPUC was used only after face-to-face and follow-up requests to Susan Kennedy (Governor's Chief of Staff), Dian Grueneich (CPUC), CEC Board, Mary Nichols and the ARB Board and ARB China's Director all went nowhere.
CPRA requests have filed with Cal/EPA, ARB, CEC, CPUC for information about the MOU, visits to China, China to California, and the Cal/EPA group called C3, among others.
Additional Information
-CPRA denial from the Governor's Office
https://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B6bttjROtnvNM2Q3ZmYxOGItNzQwMy00OGNiLThiOTEtM2NjODVjMWM2MzA4&hl=en
My letter to Governor's Attorney, Daniel Maguire, who then promised to review the matter
Invoking the California Public Records Act (CPRA)
The request to the Governor's Office used the California Public Records Act, which is intended to allow the public access to public records to ensure government is functioning properly. The CPRA does allow certain public records to be withheld (or 'exempt') but this limitation is not absolute: the State may voluntarily release certain public records even if there is an allowable exception. However, the act is very clear that disclosure is preferred option and the burden is on the Government. (Some records like social security numbers or home address are naturally private and were not requested. The state's business is what should be public.)
However, the Governor's Office refused to voluntarily release any documents. This has raised a few eyebrows in Sacramento.
The CPUC was used only after face-to-face and follow-up requests to Susan Kennedy (Governor's Chief of Staff), Dian Grueneich (CPUC), CEC Board, Mary Nichols and the ARB Board and ARB China's Director all went nowhere.
CPRA requests have filed with Cal/EPA, ARB, CEC, CPUC for information about the MOU, visits to China, China to California, and the Cal/EPA group called C3, among others.
Additional Information
-CPRA denial from the Governor's Office
https://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B6bttjROtnvNM2Q3ZmYxOGItNzQwMy00OGNiLThiOTEtM2NjODVjMWM2MzA4&hl=en
My letter to Governor's Attorney, Daniel Maguire, who then promised to review the matter
==
Dear Ms. Cummins:
==
May 12, 2010
re: CPRA denial - California-Jiangsu MOU (October, 2009)
I would appreciate if you pass this to Mr. Maguire since I do not have his email address.
I have received your May 10, 2010 denial to my PRA request.
Per this denial, you have located relevant documents, claim all are exempt and will waive the exemption from disclosure for any record.
As you are aware, CPRA favors public release unless non-disclosure "clearly outweighs" disclosure. This is about an MOU for cooperation with a province in China; not national security. Several California officials have traveled to China to discuss the issues covered by or related to this agreement.
Please release all non-exempt portions of all records. As always, if not, please provide specific reasons why non-disclosure outweighs the Act's preference for public disclosure. "Deliberative process" is not sufficient.
You may also wish to contact Susan Kennedy, who spoke with me March 9, 2010, and promised to check the MOU and provide information. I am certain she can clarify and answer all my questions.
In any event, I would appreciate full disclosure by May 26, 2010.
Separately, I have filed a second CPRA notice to Cal EPA for records.
In this correspondence, I am referring to YOUR records.
Email is preferred for all correspondence.
Thank you.
Jim Rothstein
==
No comments:
Post a Comment