ANOTHER PEEK BEHIND THE CURTAIN

3/15/2025

I received a letter from the Torrance City Attorney, Patrick Sullivan, again threatening legal action if I did not oomply with the demands. I sent him this response with copies to the City Council:

I have received your letter dated 3/4/2025. Due to the open-ended nature of your demands and unknowable extent to which the Airport Commission and City website information has been disseminated, I will be unable to comply with your deadline of 3/7/2025 to find and remove this information.

When I make a request for public records under the California Public Records Act (CPRA), I presume in good faith that the response does, in fact, contain public records. When I use those public records in an analysis and publish the results, I do so as is my First Amendment right. The fact that the City made an "inadvertent release" does not saddle me with the responsibility and cost to correct the City's error weeks after that error was made--TWICE!!

If the releases of last names on City records are subject to exemptions of the Public Records Act and must remain confidential,

1. Why does the City publish in the monthly Airport Commission agendas the last names and initials of persons on the hangar waiting list?
   
2. Why does the City publish on the Airport Noise Hearing Board agendas the full names and aircraft N-numbers (which lead to the address) of persons called before the board?

All of this involves the Noise Abatement Department. In view of the unusual amount of time you are investing in this issue and the continued threats of legal action, I have to wonder if the release of last names of the complainants was truly "inadvertent" or if is related to my disclosure a few weeks ago that the Airport Noise Hearing Board was operating beyond its authority.

Surely, the public has an undeniable interest in knowing whether or not the information about airport complaints and the number of people making those complaints is accurate. Why is the City fighting so hard to hide that information from the public?

I remain at a loss on how to comply with your demands. While the publication of complainants names can be eliminated from any report, the use of last names linked to complaints in the analyses is imperative. Without those names linked to each complaint, it is impossible to make the revealing discoveries noted below. If it is the City staff's goal to hide these embarrassing discoveries from the public, your approach makes perfect sense.

For the record, here is a timeline of the related events:

1/7/2025--In reviewing the Casper Monitoring System on-line reports for December 2024, I noticed an unexplained huge surge in complaints and the number of complainants.

1/13/2025--I made a California Public Records Act request, #W013409, for : "Airport complaint log (in Excel format--same as I have requested previously" for the period 12/1/2024 to 12/30/2024. Note that this includes NO request for names of any kind.

1/13/2025--I received the response to my Public Records Request #W013409. Last names were included on the list for each complaint.

1/14/2025 - 1/31/2025--I analyzed the public record information from that response and discovered:

• One individual made nearly 50% of the complaints in December 2024
• Only 2 individuals accounted for over 93% of the complaints in December 2024
• The number of complainants shown on the Casper System was 114, while the data received via CPRA from the City
• showed only 13! This was a huge discrepancy.

• One individual made over 53% of the complaints in the quarter
• That same individual made over 68% of the complaints in October 2024
• The Casper Monitoring System overstated the number of complainants (as compared with the public record data provided by the City) by 25% in October 2024, by 56% in November 2024, and by a whopping 777% in December 2024.
• 10 individuals made complaints each and every month.
• There was clear evidence of "spiking" the data, resulting in the publishing of false public reports on complaints and complainants
• 5 individuals submitted only non-airport complaints during the quarter--about leaf blowers, neighbors' loud music, tree trimming, etc.

• It stated that "the inadvertent release of these names was a mistake;"
• It stated that the last names on the public record information I had received was, in fact, NOT public information and that persons making airport complaints "were promised confidentiality;"
• It threatened legal action if I did not comply with the demands;
• it demanded immediate return of the documents. [Note that I had received only electronic copies of the data via e-mail attachments, so this demand was difficult to understand. Also, if the City followed through with their threat of legal action, these documents would be critical evidence and parting with them would not be wise, according to my legal advisors.]
• It requested that I promptly remove the last names "from any website or digital platform where they appear."
• It set a deadline of 2/21/2025 for me to confirm in writing that I had complied with all demands and requests.