indicating that CalPERS would comply with the request, provided we identify more specifically what records we wanted. Carlin wrote in an e-mail on February 13, 2014 that the records he was sending were
“too large” to be sent as an e
-mail attachment, so they were going out that afternoon via CD. In fact, the records were a mere 3 MB, which could easily have been sent via e-mail, so it appears that sending the information by mail, which took nine days to arrive, was yet another delaying tactic. Most important, the CD contained
none
of the records we had originally requested (the data provided to Jenkinson and Stucke) but some additional data we had asked for (on the premise that it was updating the Jenkinson/Stucke data from the period covered in their paper, 1990 to March 31, 2012, to the present; if the sort of data that Jenkinson and Stucke received was disclosable, we could request the updated information via a separate FOIA). We did, however, get some non-public information (actual date of receipt of cash flows from various
private equity funds, information that is not published in CalPERS’ quarterly updates).
Now perhaps my assumption is incorrect and the board supports this sort of misrepre
sentation to the public in order to defend CalPERS’ relationships with private equity
funds and limit the scrutiny of its history of investing in private equity. However, the interests of CalPERS
’
staf
f are not at all the same as the interest of CalPERS as an institution. CalPERS’
duty above all is to the members whose funds it invests. It should recognize that the interests of vendors like private equity funds are often adverse to their aims. As far as the public record is concerned, CalPERS staff pronounced my FOIA to be closed on January 27,2014, the date of the misleading the "we don't have anything to give you" letter. One can only surmise that the intention of failing to publish the existence of my FOIA until it had been incorrectly deemed closed (I have filed suit against CalPERS today as discussed longer form on my website (http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2014/02/sue-calpers-denial-private-equity-public-records-act-request.html), so I trust your February log will mention the litigation) was to stymie other requests for public equity return data. Should anyone in the future ask for the records that they gave me, CalPERS staff can supply January 27, 2014 letter and say, "This was our official response," which would lead that future requester to think that nothing was provided. If as in my case, the original requester continues to press the matter, CalPERS staff can later slip the records to them without entering it into their official log so that future requesters can't readily find out that the requested records were in fact provided. Is standard operating procedure
–
to generate denials or "we don't have a record" letters for requests staff does not want to comply with? Has the board been notified of this practice? If so, by what basis under law can you justify misleading the public as to the status and resolution of PRA requests? Ostensibly, this log exists as a report to the board so that it can engage in oversight to verify that CalPERS is being responsive to public record requests. However, my experience shows that in practice, it is being used as a vehicle to mislead the public and presumably the board as well. Sincerely,