TheFullertonInformer.com

to ttorlakson, marc.levine, Michael, Hank,
March 18, 2014

Re: Critical Information
““““““““““““
Dear Mr. Torlakson and Ms. Stein,

CA schools have serious problems that need immediate solutions. See http://rfemf.com/counter.html#counter Fortunately the solutions will save all CA schools money, so it can be a win-win. Mr. Torlakson, may I meet with you for one hour at your earliest convenience? I presented my first written meeting request on 3/11/14 to Dina Fong and am awaiting your response. It would be in your best interests to schedule this meeting very soon.

Dr. Martin Pall and Dr. Paul Dart on February 24, 2014 presented their findings to the State of Oregon’s House Committee On Health Care. Please listen to their 30-minute presentation and the 15-minutes of legislator discussion following the presentation.

Unfortunately, Oregon is a little behind-the-times in technology: they distribute their audio files as RealPlayer audio files. It will take a few steps to be able to play the audio file on your computer, but it is well worth spending the few minutes to do the following:

[1] Go to http://www.real.com/resources/windows-media-player-comparison/

[2] Click the orange button, called “RealPlayer Free Download” at the top right corner of the page

[3] Install the free RealPlayer software, ignore all sales pitches to upgrade.

[4] Go to this page https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2014R1/Committees/HHC/2014-02-24-13-00/MeetingMaterials

[5] Download the small file called ‘HHC-201402241308.ram’, by clicking the audio arrow/triangle near the top of this page

[6] Double-click the file downloaded called ‘HHC-201402241308.ram’ and it will open in RealPlayer

The presentation begins around 8 minutes in which you can also find here:
http://www.leg.state.or.us/listn/archive/archive.2014s/HHC-201402241308.ram

Follow Up Comment from State Rep: Keny-Guyer:

“…….Your info session went better than I could have ever predicted. Even people who had been skeptical told me how it was the first time they started to take this seriously. Sen. Laurie Monnes Anderson, chair of the Senate Health Com, told Sandy (Health Com administrator for both House and Senate Health Committees) that she caught some of it on her TV and wants a similar session for the Senate Health Committee”

[7] Download the supporting documents either from the Oregon Legislature links or from my DropBox links that follow:

2014-0224-Oregon-State-Health-Care-Committee.pdf (the meeting announcement)
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/33504620/2014-0224-Oregon-State-Health-Care-Committee.pdf

2014-0224-Martin-Pall-35597.pdf (the presentation)
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/33504620/2014-0224-Martin-Pall-35597.pdf

2014-0224-Martin-Pall-35551.pdf (scientific paper)
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/33504620/2014-0224-Martin-Paul-35551.pdf

2014-0224-Paul-Dart-35549.pdf (curriculum vitae)
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/33504620/2014-0224-Paul-Dart-35549.pdf

2014-0224-Paul-Dart-35552.pdf (scientific paper)
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/33504620/2014-0224-Paul-Dart-35552.pdf

2014-0224-Paul-Dart-36431.pdf (presentation – part 1)
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/33504620/2014-0224-Paul-Dart-36431.pdf

2014-0224-Paul-Dart-36430.pdf (presentation – part 2)
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/33504620/2014-0224-Paul-Dart-36430.pdf

2014-0224-Shawn-Abrell-35793.pdf (presentation)
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/33504620/2014-0224-Shawn-Abrell-35793.pdf

2014-0224-Recording-Log.pdf (time log of speakers)
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/33504620/2014-0224-Recording-Log.pdf

Mr. Torlakson, you and all CA school principals have the legal responsibility, accountability and liability to provide a safe learning environment for our public schools. I would strongly encourage you and members of your staff to spend the 1-2 hours it takes to listen to Dr. Pall’s and Dr. Dart’s 2/24/14 presentation, review the supporting documents and then send this information to every CA public school board member, superintendent and school principal.

In the face of this information, the State of CA and each of its public schools must take appropriate, effective actions:

1. Immediately stop all installation of wireless networking equipment and infrastructure in CA public schools and switch these Common Core funds to improving the schools’ existing wired networking infrastructure instead. A very good solution, complete with 3D classroom drawings, can be seen at http://rfemf.com. Please email the site, if you have any questions.

2. Disallow the use of any educational device that does not offer a wired connectivity option. This leaves a lot of devices on the ‘approved list’: Android tablets, Windows 8 tablets, ChomeOS Chromebooks, any Netbooks and any laptops that enable the use of Micro-USB-to-USB-to-Ethernet adapters. This leaves the Apple iPad on the ‘unapproved list’, until Apple creates a Lightning-to-USB-to-Ethernet adapter and software driver that will enable wired connectivity. This is a simple problem that Apple could solve in a few months, with enough pressure from CA schools.

3. Anyone who has the legal responsibility, accountability and liability for providing a safe environment in public schools, cannot ignore this critically important information. They will be held accountable in a court of law very soon at great, unnecessary public expense — in Mr. Torlakson’s election year.

Mr. Torlakson, would any public official seeking re-election not want to comply with CA State law?

Please, also read the following quotes:

>>> Start of quotes

The insurance industry reviewed the neutral research (studies not paid for by the wireless industry) about RF/EMF microwave radiation health effects years ago and they started disclaiming health issues from Wi-Fi back in 2009. Whether someone has a child in school or not, they are all now financially “on the hook” for the inevitable health related lawsuits about to be filed. The schools, as well as the businesses, have no insurance coverage.

School districts don’t have funds for lawsuits, and when educators read the science — 70% of non-industry studies demonstrate clear hazards — the administrators are going start seeing that being “precautionary” is in their school district’s best financial interests.

In our capacity consulting for engineers, governments, industry, insurers and medical education, we were contacted about Wi-Fi. It was passed on to my desk because of my electrical, building engineering and Thermal Radiation credentials. We had to substantiate causation before it was lectured in medical education applicable in every state.

Parents as well as teachers should be as angry as Grizzly Bears protecting their young because the reality is their children are being electrocuted slowly and the school buildings are being structurally compromised by these Wi-Fi signals. There is no margin of error on this. School administrators, industry and politicians have to disqualify electricity as peer reviewed science or the liability coming at them and taxpayers will be astronomical.

— CURTIS BENNETT thermoguy@shaw.ca

>>> End of quotes

Mr. Torlakson, would any public official seeking re-election not want to put their school districts on the strongest financial footing?

Finally, Mr. Torlakson, would any public official seeking re-election want to argue against the health and safety of children?

Re: Violations of CA Public Records Request per CA Public Records Act, GOVT. CODE §§ 6250-6276.48
““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““`

Events of March 11, 2014
““““““““““““
Allow me now to explain my perspective of what happened on March 11, 2014 in the lobby of the California Department of Education at 1430 N St. in Sacramento, CA. I called Mr. Torlakson, just as our brief session ended in the lobby on 3/11/14, Ms. Stein, and will call him again today to follow up.

Regardless of which government employee holds ‘x’ title/position or which government employee has ‘y’ opinion, CA State Law is written in the English language and anyone who can read English with some proficiency can understand what is printed on the page — even an Ivy League graduate who has the skills to read, analyze and contribute material to http://rfemf.com.

When you met me in the lobby of the California Department of Education at 1430 N St. with Dina Fong on March 11, 2014, it was clear to me that you had no intention of treating my request with the seriousness that it deserves or even with the response required by CA State law.

You did not invite me to sit down in a conference room, listen to my concerns, clarify your understanding of my request or even help me map the request to the artifacts that would provide the information that I properly requested. This much cooperation I got from the staff two CA State Assembly members, earlier that day who had received essentially the same CPRA information request that Mr. Torlakson received. In fact it was Marc Levine’s office that suggested that I send the CPRA information request directly to Mr. Torlakson.

The CA Dept. of Education took a very defiant and uncooperative stance from the very start. Even in your 3/12/14 @ 4:30 pm email to me, you have not followed up to clarify your understanding of my information request or indicated when the records will be available for my inspection.

While you forced us to stand in the lobby to discuss matters on 3/11/14, I asked you if you and I could please sit down and review the information request together. You refused.

I asked what part of the law justified any delay in blocking my access to inspect public information at 1430 N St. that day. You handed me a single page that you printed out from CA Public Records Act, GOVT. CODE §§ 6250-6276.48, specifically §§ 6253. A photo of this page is attached to this email.

In the lobby, I read to you the following relevant portions of CA law, out loud, from the page you handed to me:

>>> start of quoted CA Law

Section 6253
““““““
(a) Public records are open to inspection at all times during the office hours of the state or local agency and every person has a right to inspect any public record, except as hereafter provided . . .

(b) . . . each state or local agency . . . shall make the records promptly available . . .

(c) Each agency, upon a request for a copy of records, shall, within 10 days from receipt of the request, determine whether the request, in whole or in part seeks copies of disclosable public records”

>>> end of quoted CA Law

[1] What part of “open to inspection at all times during the office hours” did you not understand on March 11 2014 and that you still do not understand today?

[2] I clearly pointed out to on 3/11/14 you that ‘Section 6253, paragraph (c)’ did not apply to my properly filed CPRA information request for the simple reason that I did not request any copies of records, just inspection of the records relevant to my request that were available at 1430 N St. on 3/11/14. Clearly, some records were available on that day. As public records are now stored digitally and available from tax-payer supported servers and content management systems, my request was both reasonable and within CA State law.

Here are quotes directly from my CPRA request:

>>>>> Start of quoted CA Public Records Act Information Request directed to Tom Torlakson

rfemf.com wrote to Tom Torlakson on 3/10/14 @ 4:32 pm:

“Dear Mr. Torlakson, Mr. Levine and Mr. Brady,

I submitted a CA Public Records Act, GOVT. CODE §§ 6250-6276.48 information request today to Marc Levine, my CA State Assembly Member, District 10. It was assigned to Hank Brady, his legislative assistant, who pulled together some, but not all of the information that I requested. Mr. Brady agreed to forward this entire email to Marc Levine.

Mr. Levine’s office directed me to send the same CPRA information request directly to your office, which I am doing now. Access to this information is immediate, per CA law; there is no ten day waiting period for the reasons described below . . .

CA Public Records Request per CA Public Records Act, GOVT. CODE §§ 6250-6276.48
““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““
Mr. Torlakson, you and all other State and local government employees are bound by the same CA State law: CALIFORNIA PUBLIC RECORDS ACT GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 6250, August, 2004. I attached the summary pdf of the law for your reference at the bottom of this email. Quotes of just a few key provisions of this law follow:

“In enacting the CPRA, the Legislature stated that access to information concerning the conduct of the public’s business is a fundamental and necessary right for every person in the State. Cases interpreting the CPRA also have emphasized that its primary purpose is to give the public an opportunity to monitor the functioning of their government. The greater and more unfettered the public official’s power, the greater the public’s interest in monitoring the governmental action . . .

Writings held by state or local government are public records. A writing includes all forms of recorded information that currently exist or that may exist in the future. The essence of the CPRA is to provide access to information, not merely documents and files . . .

To the extent reasonable, agencies are generally required to assist members of the public in making focused and effective requests for identifiable records.”

The intent of this state law, Mr. Torlakson, is for you and other CA State government employees to assist members of the public to get the information that they request. Members of the public will not always know on which artifacts (reports, email, calendar entries, text messages, hand-written notes, financial records, phone records, memories) the information they request will reside, so it puts the public at a disadvantage. Hence the need for assistance from the government employees, as stated in CA law.

The CA State government and the Petaluma City Schools District are not private companies and are not afforded the same levels of confidentiality that a private company might enjoy. Our state and local government must conduct its business in the open — nearly all of it in the open, except for personnel matters. All of the information that is not covered by exemptions is available for inspection by members of the public.

Please note, the CPRA says “Records may be inspected at an agency during its regular office hours. The CPRA contains no provision for a charge to be imposed in connection with the mere inspection of records.” My plan is to read the documents at Mr. Levine’s office either in Sacramento or locally. I will bring my camera for the few photos that I may actually need to make.

Importantly, the CPRA information request detailed in this document is not subject to delay, ten days or otherwise, for the following reasons:
[1] I am not requesting copies, just inspection of the existing information in any form
[2] The information exists in some form within our CA State government
[3] The information is not exempt from the CPRA process

The following is the information that I wish to inspect tomorrow Mar 11, 2014 at 11:00 am at Mr. Torlakson’s office. I will be arriving at 10:30 am to present this request in person. I may need your assistance, Mr. Torlakson, or the assistance of someone on your staff to map my request to the proper artifacts:

I am aware that the state of CA has made available to local school Districts a significant amount of money — at least $748,000+ made available to the Petaluma City Schools District (PCSD) in late 2013 or early 2014 — for the purpose of supplementing the school district’s technology infrastructure to enable it to comply with Common Core goals. I wish to inspect any and all information about this transfer of money from the State of CA to the Petaluma City School District and any guidelines or requirements that the PCSD had to follow when receiving and spending this money: including, but not limited to any guidelines, requirements, contracts, documents, files (either printed or stored on computers) meeting agendas, meeting minutes, correspondence (including, but not limited to letters, emails and text messages), work orders and calendar appointments. I also seek whatever insurance and indemnification clauses that may exist regarding CA State government’s or the PCSD’s liabilities for any hazards or damages that the technology installations may inflict on the teachers and students in the Petaluma City School District.

I also want to inspect the same information for the last time the state transferred a sum of money exceeding $250,000 to the Petaluma City School District (for any reason) to compare and contrast the guidelines, requirements contracts, documents, files (either printed or stored on computers) meeting agendas, meeting minutes, correspondence (including, but not limited to letters, emails and text messages), work orders and calendar appointments, insurance and indemnification clauses for the project this sum of money was designed to address. ”

>>>>> End of quoted CA Public Records Act Information Request directed to Tom Torlakson

Ms. Stein, your refusal to allow me access to inspect properly requested public information on March 11, 2014 places you, individually, and Mr. Torlakson’s office in violation of CA Public Records Act, GOVT. CODE §§ 6250-6276.48 and legal actions may be started against you and Mr. Torlakson’s office immediately.

Your answer to my pointing out the clarity of the language in the existing CA law, the very law you handed me, was that you believed that based on your experience that the State of CA had ten days to respond. You made some vague references to case law, but did not make any specific citations. Your response was “we will agree to disagree”.

While we were discussing my rights to inspect the public information on 3/11/14 in the lobby, I said that I would be fine waiting a reasonable period of time before I inspect the requested public information, if the State would direct the Petaluma City School District to turn off the unnecessary, dangerous wireless access point in my daughter’s kindergarten room, while the CA Dept. of Education took the time to gather its records. That makes perfect sense. Why would the CA Dept. of Education want sensitive 5-6 year old students to continue to be exposed to a dangerous Class 2B Carcinogen in the classroom, just for some administrative delay?

You said to me “that sounds like a threat”. Do you remember that, Ms. Stein? I have a record of you saying that. What are your and Mr. Torlakson priorities, in this election year? Do you have any concern for the health and safety of our children/CA State’s public school students?

When I tried to show you the animation at http://rfemf.com/counter.html#counter that demonstrates that the total cumulative Radio Frequency Electro-Magnetic Fields microwave radiation exposure in my daughter’s kindergarten classroom has exceeded our Federal adult maximum public exposure guideline by nearly 1,000 times since the start of the 2013-2014 school year, you rudely turned and walked away.

Ms. Stein, I will be making a second attempt to gain access to the public information I seek. I may be accompanied by any legal personnel, law enforcement personnel or members of the media that I wish, to enable me to enforce my rights as CA resident to gain access to properly requested public information. I may do so during regular business hours on a day of my choosing, as guaranteed by CA law. I will expect Mr. Torlakson’s office to comply with the law.

Would any public official seeking re-election not want to comply with CA State law?

Please find my other comments on your 3/12/14 email, below.

Elizabeth Stein wrote:
Dear Mr. McGavin,
On Monday March 10, at 4:33 p.m., CDE received a 22-page e-mail addressed to the State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Torlakson, Assembly Member Mr. Levine, and his assistant, Mr. Brady. You discussed a number of issues relating to the Petaluma City School District’s (PCSD) recent technology upgrades, but it appears that the only request directed to the Superintendent was a Public Act Request seeking documents relating to the transfer of money in late 2013 or early 2014 between the CDE and PCSD for the purpose of “supplementing the school district’s technology infrastructure to enable it to comply with Common Core goals.” You also enumerated other documents and information that you wished to review related to these funds.
You stated emphatically in this e-mail that you had the right to inspect all of the documents immediately and that you would be arriving the next morning at the CDE offices to personally inspect these documents.
By law, I do not have to give Mr. Torlakson’s office any advance notice. I merely just have to show up and make my request. The State of CA Dept. of Education and all state employees have to comply.
The following morning, March 11, you called the Superintendent’s office asking to speak to someone regarding your Public Record Act Request. Ms. Dina Fong, Manager of the Superintendent’s Correspondence Unit, took the call. You told her you were giving her the courtesy of a telephone call to ask if there was a convenient time that same afternoon to inspect the records requested in your e-mail the night before.
Correct. I was being courteous, which is not a requirement of CA State law.

She informed you that, not only would the CDE not be able to gather responsive records in such a short amount of time, but that she understood that the CDE had the legal right to take up to 10 calendar days to respond to the request and to then determine a reasonable date and time in which you could inspect any disclosable documents that might be located. I understand that you informed Ms. Fong in a confrontational manner that she was wrong in her interpretation of the law and that you had the right to inspect the documents that very same day in the CDE’s offices and that you would be at the CDE soon to do so. Ms. Fong reiterated to you that nothing would be available for you to inspect that day, but, she would be happy to confirm her understanding of the legal requirements with the Legal Division if you felt her understanding was not accurate.
My response was polite and firm: CA law gives me access.
A bit later that same day, Ms. Fong called you and left you a voice mail message, informing you that the Legal Division confirmed her understanding of the Public Records Act law- namely that you had no right to demand immediate review of the documents at CDE’s offices, and that a written response to your request would be forthcoming pursuant to the law. You called her back right away and she reiterated the same information to you over the telephone. You again informed her, in a confrontational manner, that both she and CDE’s attorneys were wrong and that you would be at our offices imminently to inspect the records.
My response was polite and firm: CA law gives me access.

Despite having been told twice from Ms. Fong that no records would be made available that day for your review, you arrived at the CDE offices at approximately 2 p.m., less than 24 hours after your initial e-mail to the department.
My response was polite and firm: CA law gives me access.
Ms. Fong and I, a Deputy General Counsel with the CDE Legal Division, went to the lobby to meet with you to attempt to explain the process by which your request would be handled. However, you were unpleasant and continued to demand to review the documents immediately.
You, Ms. Stein contributed as much unpleasantness in this interaction as I allegedly did.
CDE is entitled to review its records to determine whether it has responsive documents. You then demanded an appointment be set with the Superintendent himself. When you were informed that such a request should be made in writing, you subsequently wrote out a handwritten request which you gave to Ms. Fong.
All of this is well within my rights as a CA resident and US Citizen.

Because of your confrontational demeanor, it wasn’t possible to have a productive conversation about your Public Record Act request and next steps.
Not quite right, Ms. Stein. You were a full participant in the unpleasant, confrontational behavior. In fact, I believe that our conversation was digitally recorded, so we can go back and review what actually happened:

The Public Records Act provides government agencies with up to 10 calendar days to review a PRA request and determine if the request seeks disclosable documents that can be reasonably located within the agency.
You are not citing the key qualifier: “Each agency, upon a request for a copy of records, shall, within 10 days from receipt of the request, determine whether the request, in whole or in part seeks copies of disclosable public records”

No copies were requested. The ten day delay does not apply.

As I attempted to explain, in certain circumstances set forth in the Government Code, the 10 day period can be extended for up to an additional 14 days. Depending upon the nature of the request, the CDE may need to invoke the 14-day statutory extension.
Again, not in this case. No copies were requested. “Public records are open to inspection at all times during the office hours of the state or local agency and every person has a right to inspect any public record”
More importantly, the PRA does not require that the actual documents be provided immediately upon request or even be provided during the 10 or 24 day response period; rather the law provides that the agency inform the requestor within that period of time of when disclosable documents can reasonably be expected to be ready for inspection/production.
Read the law.

Not only is this an agency’s right under the law, but it is unreasonable to think that a large department that receives thousands of requests each year can possibly process and review a request, gather and review responsive documents, and make these documents immediately available upon demand.
Read the law.

Accordingly I, or another member of the Department, will respond to your PRA request pursuant to the statutory requirements of the Government Code. Separately, someone from the Superintendent’s office will be in touch with you regarding your written request for an appointment.

Prepare to provide proper access to the public information, not at Mr. Torlakson’s convenience, but according to CA State law.

Elizabeth S. Stein, Deputy General Counsel
Legal, Audits and Compliance Division
California Department of Education
1430 N Street, Suite 5319
Sacramento, CA 95814
(916) 319-0860
estein@cde.ca.gov

I look forward to your prompt response.

Regards,

rfemf.com

3 Attachments
Image
2014-0311-Appt-Req.jpg
Image
2014-0311-Sect-6253.jpg
PDF
CA-Public-Records-Act.pdf

Recipients

———- Forwarded message ———-
From: rfemf.com Date: Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 11:14 AM
Subject: Critical Information and CA Public Records Act Public Information Request Violations
To: Tom Torlakson , Elizabeth Stein , Marc Levine , Sharon Quirk-Silva
Cc: ttorlakson@cde.ca.gov, marc.levine@asm.ca.gov, Michael Miller , Hank Brady , Reichel Everhart , Mary Adkins , joe imbriano , Shawn Abrell , David Morrison

March 18, 2014

Re: Critical Information
““““““““““““
Dear Mr. Torlakson and Ms. Stein,

CA schools have serious problems that need immediate solutions. See http://rfemf.com/counter.html#counter Fortunately the solutions will save all CA schools money, so it can be a win-win. Mr. Torlakson, may I meet with you for one hour at your earliest convenience? I presented my first written meeting request on 3/11/14 to Dina Fong and am awaiting your response. It would be in your best interests to schedule this meeting very soon.

Dr. Martin Pall and Dr. Paul Dart on February 24, 2014 presented their findings to the State of Oregon’s House Committee On Health Care. Please listen to their 30-minute presentation and the 15-minutes of legislator discussion following the presentation.

Unfortunately, Oregon is a little behind-the-times in technology: they distribute their audio files as RealPlayer audio files. It will take a few steps to be able to play the audio file on your computer, but it is well worth spending the few minutes to do the following:

[1] Go to http://www.real.com/resources/windows-media-player-comparison/

[2] Click the orange button, called “RealPlayer Free Download” at the top right corner of the page

[3] Install the free RealPlayer software, ignore all sales pitches to upgrade.

[4] Go to this page https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2014R1/Committees/HHC/2014-02-24-13-00/MeetingMaterials

[5] Download the small file called ‘HHC-201402241308.ram’, by clicking the audio arrow/triangle near the top of this page

[6] Double-click the file downloaded called ‘HHC-201402241308.ram’ and it will open in RealPlayer

The presentation begins around 8 minutes in which you can also find here:
http://www.leg.state.or.us/listn/archive/archive.2014s/HHC-201402241308.ram

Follow Up Comment from State Rep: Keny-Guyer:

“…….Your info session went better than I could have ever predicted. Even people who had been skeptical told me how it was the first time they started to take this seriously. Sen. Laurie Monnes Anderson, chair of the Senate Health Com, told Sandy (Health Com administrator for both House and Senate Health Committees) that she caught some of it on her TV and wants a similar session for the Senate Health Committee”

[7] Download the supporting documents either from the Oregon Legislature links or from my DropBox links that follow:

2014-0224-Oregon-State-Health-Care-Committee.pdf (the meeting announcement)
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/33504620/2014-0224-Oregon-State-Health-Care-Committee.pdf

2014-0224-Martin-Pall-35597.pdf (the presentation)
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/33504620/2014-0224-Martin-Pall-35597.pdf

2014-0224-Martin-Pall-35551.pdf (scientific paper)
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/33504620/2014-0224-Martin-Paul-35551.pdf

2014-0224-Paul-Dart-35549.pdf (curriculum vitae)
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/33504620/2014-0224-Paul-Dart-35549.pdf

2014-0224-Paul-Dart-35552.pdf (scientific paper)
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/33504620/2014-0224-Paul-Dart-35552.pdf

2014-0224-Paul-Dart-36431.pdf (presentation – part 1)
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/33504620/2014-0224-Paul-Dart-36431.pdf

2014-0224-Paul-Dart-36430.pdf (presentation – part 2)
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/33504620/2014-0224-Paul-Dart-36430.pdf

2014-0224-Shawn-Abrell-35793.pdf (presentation)
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/33504620/2014-0224-Shawn-Abrell-35793.pdf

2014-0224-Recording-Log.pdf (time log of speakers)
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/33504620/2014-0224-Recording-Log.pdf

Mr. Torlakson, you and all CA school principals have the legal responsibility, accountability and liability to provide a safe learning environment for our public schools. I would strongly encourage you and members of your staff to spend the 1-2 hours it takes to listen to Dr. Pall’s and Dr. Dart’s 2/24/14 presentation, review the supporting documents and then send this information to every CA public school board member, superintendent and school principal.

In the face of this information, the State of CA and each of its public schools must take appropriate, effective actions:

1. Immediately stop all installation of wireless networking equipment and infrastructure in CA public schools and switch these Common Core funds to improving the schools’ existing wired networking infrastructure instead. A very good solution, complete with 3D classroom drawings, can be seen at http://rfemf.com. Please email the site, if you have any questions.

2. Disallow the use of any educational device that does not offer a wired connectivity option. This leaves a lot of devices on the ‘approved list’: Android tablets, Windows 8 tablets, ChomeOS Chromebooks, any Netbooks and any laptops that enable the use of Micro-USB-to-USB-to-Ethernet adapters. This leaves the Apple iPad on the ‘unapproved list’, until Apple creates a Lightning-to-USB-to-Ethernet adapter and software driver that will enable wired connectivity. This is a simple problem that Apple could solve in a few months, with enough pressure from CA schools.

3. Anyone who has the legal responsibility, accountability and liability for providing a safe environment in public schools, cannot ignore this critically important information. They will be held accountable in a court of law very soon at great, unnecessary public expense — in Mr. Torlakson’s election year.

Mr. Torlakson, would any public official seeking re-election not want to comply with CA State law?

Please, also read the following quotes:

>>> Start of quotes

The insurance industry reviewed the neutral research (studies not paid for by the wireless industry) about RF/EMF microwave radiation health effects years ago and they started disclaiming health issues from Wi-Fi back in 2009. Whether someone has a child in school or not, they are all now financially “on the hook” for the inevitable health related lawsuits about to be filed. The schools, as well as the businesses, have no insurance coverage.

School districts don’t have funds for lawsuits, and when educators read the science — 70% of non-industry studies demonstrate clear hazards — the administrators are going start seeing that being “precautionary” is in their school district’s best financial interests.

In our capacity consulting for engineers, governments, industry, insurers and medical education, we were contacted about Wi-Fi. It was passed on to my desk because of my electrical, building engineering and Thermal Radiation credentials. We had to substantiate causation before it was lectured in medical education applicable in every state.

Parents as well as teachers should be as angry as Grizzly Bears protecting their young because the reality is their children are being electrocuted slowly and the school buildings are being structurally compromised by these Wi-Fi signals. There is no margin of error on this. School administrators, industry and politicians have to disqualify electricity as peer reviewed science or the liability coming at them and taxpayers will be astronomical.

— CURTIS BENNETT thermoguy@shaw.ca

>>> End of quotes

Mr. Torlakson, would any public official seeking re-election not want to put their school districts on the strongest financial footing?

Finally, Mr. Torlakson, would any public official seeking re-election want to argue against the health and safety of children?

Re: Violations of CA Public Records Request per CA Public Records Act, GOVT. CODE §§ 6250-6276.48
““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““`

Events of March 11, 2014
““““““““““““
Allow me now to explain my perspective of what happened on March 11, 2014 in the lobby of the California Department of Education at 1430 N St. in Sacramento, CA. I called Mr. Torlakson, just as our brief session ended in the lobby on 3/11/14, Ms. Stein, and will call him again today to follow up.

Regardless of which government employee holds ‘x’ title/position or which government employee has ‘y’ opinion, CA State Law is written in the English language and anyone who can read English with some proficiency can understand what is printed on the page — even an Ivy League graduate who has the skills to read, analyze and contribute material to http://rfemf.com.

When you met me in the lobby of the California Department of Education at 1430 N St. with Dina Fong on March 11, 2014, it was clear to me that you had no intention of treating my request with the seriousness that it deserves or even with the response required by CA State law.

You did not invite me to sit down in a conference room, listen to my concerns, clarify your understanding of my request or even help me map the request to the artifacts that would provide the information that I properly requested. This much cooperation I got from the staff two CA State Assembly members, earlier that day who had received essentially the same CPRA information request that Mr. Torlakson received. In fact it was Marc Levine’s office that suggested that I send the CPRA information request directly to Mr. Torlakson.

The CA Dept. of Education took a very defiant and uncooperative stance from the very start. Even in your 3/12/14 @ 4:30 pm email to me, you have not followed up to clarify your understanding of my information request or indicated when the records will be available for my inspection.

While you forced us to stand in the lobby to discuss matters on 3/11/14, I asked you if you and I could please sit down and review the information request together. You refused.

I asked what part of the law justified any delay in blocking my access to inspect public information at 1430 N St. that day. You handed me a single page that you printed out from CA Public Records Act, GOVT. CODE §§ 6250-6276.48, specifically §§ 6253. A photo of this page is attached to this email.

In the lobby, I read to you the following relevant portions of CA law, out loud, from the page you handed to me:

>>> start of quoted CA Law

Section 6253
““““““
(a) Public records are open to inspection at all times during the office hours of the state or local agency and every person has a right to inspect any public record, except as hereafter provided . . .

(b) . . . each state or local agency . . . shall make the records promptly available . . .

(c) Each agency, upon a request for a copy of records, shall, within 10 days from receipt of the request, determine whether the request, in whole or in part seeks copies of disclosable public records”

>>> end of quoted CA Law

[1] What part of “open to inspection at all times during the office hours” did you not understand on March 11 2014 and that you still do not understand today?

[2] I clearly pointed out to on 3/11/14 you that ‘Section 6253, paragraph (c)’ did not apply to my properly filed CPRA information request for the simple reason that I did not request any copies of records, just inspection of the records relevant to my request that were available at 1430 N St. on 3/11/14. Clearly, some records were available on that day. As public records are now stored digitally and available from tax-payer supported servers and content management systems, my request was both reasonable and within CA State law.

Here are quotes directly from my CPRA request:

>>>>> Start of quoted CA Public Records Act Information Request directed to Tom Torlakson

Paul McGavin wrote to Tom Torlakson on 3/10/14 @ 4:32 pm:

“Dear Mr. Torlakson, Mr. Levine and Mr. Brady,

I submitted a CA Public Records Act, GOVT. CODE §§ 6250-6276.48 information request today to Marc Levine, my CA State Assembly Member, District 10. It was assigned to Hank Brady, his legislative assistant, who pulled together some, but not all of the information that I requested. Mr. Brady agreed to forward this entire email to Marc Levine.

Mr. Levine’s office directed me to send the same CPRA information request directly to your office, which I am doing now. Access to this information is immediate, per CA law; there is no ten day waiting period for the reasons described below . . .

CA Public Records Request per CA Public Records Act, GOVT. CODE §§ 6250-6276.48
““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““
Mr. Torlakson, you and all other State and local government employees are bound by the same CA State law: CALIFORNIA PUBLIC RECORDS ACT GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 6250, August, 2004. I attached the summary pdf of the law for your reference at the bottom of this email. Quotes of just a few key provisions of this law follow:

“In enacting the CPRA, the Legislature stated that access to information concerning the conduct of the public’s business is a fundamental and necessary right for every person in the State. Cases interpreting the CPRA also have emphasized that its primary purpose is to give the public an opportunity to monitor the functioning of their government. The greater and more unfettered the public official’s power, the greater the public’s interest in monitoring the governmental action . . .

Writings held by state or local government are public records. A writing includes all forms of recorded information that currently exist or that may exist in the future. The essence of the CPRA is to provide access to information, not merely documents and files . . .

To the extent reasonable, agencies are generally required to assist members of the public in making focused and effective requests for identifiable records.”

The intent of this state law, Mr. Torlakson, is for you and other CA State government employees to assist members of the public to get the information that they request. Members of the public will not always know on which artifacts (reports, email, calendar entries, text messages, hand-written notes, financial records, phone records, memories) the information they request will reside, so it puts the public at a disadvantage. Hence the need for assistance from the government employees, as stated in CA law.

The CA State government and the Petaluma City Schools District are not private companies and are not afforded the same levels of confidentiality that a private company might enjoy. Our state and local government must conduct its business in the open — nearly all of it in the open, except for personnel matters. All of the information that is not covered by exemptions is available for inspection by members of the public.

Please note, the CPRA says “Records may be inspected at an agency during its regular office hours. The CPRA contains no provision for a charge to be imposed in connection with the mere inspection of records.” My plan is to read the documents at Mr. Levine’s office either in Sacramento or locally. I will bring my camera for the few photos that I may actually need to make.

Importantly, the CPRA information request detailed in this document is not subject to delay, ten days or otherwise, for the following reasons:
[1] I am not requesting copies, just inspection of the existing information in any form
[2] The information exists in some form within our CA State government
[3] The information is not exempt from the CPRA process

The following is the information that I wish to inspect tomorrow Mar 11, 2014 at 11:00 am at Mr. Torlakson’s office. I will be arriving at 10:30 am to present this request in person. I may need your assistance, Mr. Torlakson, or the assistance of someone on your staff to map my request to the proper artifacts:

I am aware that the state of CA has made available to local school Districts a significant amount of money — at least $748,000+ made available to the Petaluma City Schools District (PCSD) in late 2013 or early 2014 — for the purpose of supplementing the school district’s technology infrastructure to enable it to comply with Common Core goals. I wish to inspect any and all information about this transfer of money from the State of CA to the Petaluma City School District and any guidelines or requirements that the PCSD had to follow when receiving and spending this money: including, but not limited to any guidelines, requirements, contracts, documents, files (either printed or stored on computers) meeting agendas, meeting minutes, correspondence (including, but not limited to letters, emails and text messages), work orders and calendar appointments. I also seek whatever insurance and indemnification clauses that may exist regarding CA State government’s or the PCSD’s liabilities for any hazards or damages that the technology installations may inflict on the teachers and students in the Petaluma City School District.

I also want to inspect the same information for the last time the state transferred a sum of money exceeding $250,000 to the Petaluma City School District (for any reason) to compare and contrast the guidelines, requirements contracts, documents, files (either printed or stored on computers) meeting agendas, meeting minutes, correspondence (including, but not limited to letters, emails and text messages), work orders and calendar appointments, insurance and indemnification clauses for the project this sum of money was designed to address. ”

>>>>> End of quoted CA Public Records Act Information Request directed to Tom Torlakson

Ms. Stein, your refusal to allow me access to inspect properly requested public information on March 11, 2014 places you, individually, and Mr. Torlakson’s office in violation of CA Public Records Act, GOVT. CODE §§ 6250-6276.48 and legal actions may be started against you and Mr. Torlakson’s office immediately.

Your answer to my pointing out the clarity of the language in the existing CA law, the very law you handed me, was that you believed that based on your experience that the State of CA had ten days to respond. You made some vague references to case law, but did not make any specific citations. Your response was “we will agree to disagree”.

While we were discussing my rights to inspect the public information on 3/11/14 in the lobby, I said that I would be fine waiting a reasonable period of time before I inspect the requested public information, if the State would direct the Petaluma City School District to turn off the unnecessary, dangerous wireless access point in my daughter’s kindergarten room, while the CA Dept. of Education took the time to gather its records. That makes perfect sense. Why would the CA Dept. of Education want sensitive 5-6 year old students to continue to be exposed to a dangerous Class 2B Carcinogen in the classroom, just for some administrative delay?

You said to me “that sounds like a threat”. Do you remember that, Ms. Stein? I have a record of you saying that. What are your and Mr. Torlakson priorities, in this election year? Do you have any concern for the health and safety of our children/CA State’s public school students?

When I tried to show you the animation at http://rfemf.com/counter.html#counter that demonstrates that the total cumulative Radio Frequency Electro-Magnetic Fields microwave radiation exposure in my daughter’s kindergarten classroom has exceeded our Federal adult maximum public exposure guideline by nearly 1,000 times since the start of the 2013-2014 school year, you rudely turned and walked away.

Ms. Stein, I will be making a second attempt to gain access to the public information I seek. I may be accompanied by any legal personnel, law enforcement personnel or members of the media that I wish, to enable me to enforce my rights as CA resident to gain access to properly requested public information. I may do so during regular business hours on a day of my choosing, as guaranteed by CA law. I will expect Mr. Torlakson’s office to comply with the law.

Would any public official seeking re-election not want to comply with CA State law?

Please find my other comments on your 3/12/14 email, below.

Elizabeth Stein wrote:
Dear Mr. McGavin,
On Monday March 10, at 4:33 p.m., CDE received a 22-page e-mail addressed to the State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Torlakson, Assembly Member Mr. Levine, and his assistant, Mr. Brady. You discussed a number of issues relating to the Petaluma City School District’s (PCSD) recent technology upgrades, but it appears that the only request directed to the Superintendent was a Public Act Request seeking documents relating to the transfer of money in late 2013 or early 2014 between the CDE and PCSD for the purpose of “supplementing the school district’s technology infrastructure to enable it to comply with Common Core goals.” You also enumerated other documents and information that you wished to review related to these funds.
You stated emphatically in this e-mail that you had the right to inspect all of the documents immediately and that you would be arriving the next morning at the CDE offices to personally inspect these documents.
By law, I do not have to give Mr. Torlakson’s office any advance notice. I merely just have to show up and make my request. The State of CA Dept. of Education and all state employees have to comply.
The following morning, March 11, you called the Superintendent’s office asking to speak to someone regarding your Public Record Act Request. Ms. Dina Fong, Manager of the Superintendent’s Correspondence Unit, took the call. You told her you were giving her the courtesy of a telephone call to ask if there was a convenient time that same afternoon to inspect the records requested in your e-mail the night before.
Correct. I was being courteous, which is not a requirement of CA State law.

She informed you that, not only would the CDE not be able to gather responsive records in such a short amount of time, but that she understood that the CDE had the legal right to take up to 10 calendar days to respond to the request and to then determine a reasonable date and time in which you could inspect any disclosable documents that might be located. I understand that you informed Ms. Fong in a confrontational manner that she was wrong in her interpretation of the law and that you had the right to inspect the documents that very same day in the CDE’s offices and that you would be at the CDE soon to do so. Ms. Fong reiterated to you that nothing would be available for you to inspect that day, but, she would be happy to confirm her understanding of the legal requirements with the Legal Division if you felt her understanding was not accurate.
My response was polite and firm: CA law gives me access.
A bit later that same day, Ms. Fong called you and left you a voice mail message, informing you that the Legal Division confirmed her understanding of the Public Records Act law- namely that you had no right to demand immediate review of the documents at CDE’s offices, and that a written response to your request would be forthcoming pursuant to the law. You called her back right away and she reiterated the same information to you over the telephone. You again informed her, in a confrontational manner, that both she and CDE’s attorneys were wrong and that you would be at our offices imminently to inspect the records.
My response was polite and firm: CA law gives me access.

Despite having been told twice from Ms. Fong that no records would be made available that day for your review, you arrived at the CDE offices at approximately 2 p.m., less than 24 hours after your initial e-mail to the department.
My response was polite and firm: CA law gives me access.
Ms. Fong and I, a Deputy General Counsel with the CDE Legal Division, went to the lobby to meet with you to attempt to explain the process by which your request would be handled. However, you were unpleasant and continued to demand to review the documents immediately.
You, Ms. Stein contributed as much unpleasantness in this interaction as I allegedly did.
CDE is entitled to review its records to determine whether it has responsive documents. You then demanded an appointment be set with the Superintendent himself. When you were informed that such a request should be made in writing, you subsequently wrote out a handwritten request which you gave to Ms. Fong.
All of this is well within my rights as a CA resident and US Citizen.

Because of your confrontational demeanor, it wasn’t possible to have a productive conversation about your Public Record Act request and next steps.
Not quite right, Ms. Stein. You were a full participant in the unpleasant, confrontational behavior. In fact, I believe that our conversation was digitally recorded, so we can go back and review what actually happened:

The Public Records Act provides government agencies with up to 10 calendar days to review a PRA request and determine if the request seeks disclosable documents that can be reasonably located within the agency.
You are not citing the key qualifier: “Each agency, upon a request for a copy of records, shall, within 10 days from receipt of the request, determine whether the request, in whole or in part seeks copies of disclosable public records”

No copies were requested. The ten day delay does not apply.

As I attempted to explain, in certain circumstances set forth in the Government Code, the 10 day period can be extended for up to an additional 14 days. Depending upon the nature of the request, the CDE may need to invoke the 14-day statutory extension.
Again, not in this case. No copies were requested. “Public records are open to inspection at all times during the office hours of the state or local agency and every person has a right to inspect any public record”
More importantly, the PRA does not require that the actual documents be provided immediately upon request or even be provided during the 10 or 24 day response period; rather the law provides that the agency inform the requestor within that period of time of when disclosable documents can reasonably be expected to be ready for inspection/production.
Read the law.

Not only is this an agency’s right under the law, but it is unreasonable to think that a large department that receives thousands of requests each year can possibly process and review a request, gather and review responsive documents, and make these documents immediately available upon demand.
Read the law.

Accordingly I, or another member of the Department, will respond to your PRA request pursuant to the statutory requirements of the Government Code. Separately, someone from the Superintendent’s office will be in touch with you regarding your written request for an appointment.

Prepare to provide proper access to the public information, not at Mr. Torlakson’s convenience, but according to CA State law.

Elizabeth S. Stein, Deputy General Counsel
Legal, Audits and Compliance Division
California Department of Education
1430 N Street, Suite 5319
Sacramento, CA 95814
(916) 319-0860
estein@cde.ca.gov

I look forward to your prompt response.

Regards,

rfemf.com

2014-0311-Appt-Req.jpg (188K)
2014-0311-Sect-6253.jpg (229K)
CA