As County Leaders Tout Transparency, They Fight Public Records Releases

Voice of San Diego is suing the county to try to force the release of whistleblower complaints against a former county contractor that could shed light on what the county knew long before the nonprofit was embroiled in a criminal misappropriation case involving public money.

Voice’s lawsuit filed in Superior Court on Friday marks the latest legal dispute between the county and Voice of San Diego over public records. It comes as County Board Chair Terra Lawson-Remer gears up to pitch the need for a ballot measure to improve transparency and she and her colleagues often cite the public’s support for a more open county government. But county leaders are often not choosing transparency on public records. 

The latest case involves a record that District Attorney Summer Stephan described as she announced felony charges against the former chief operating officer of the Harm Reduction Coalition of San Diego. Stephan told reporters that a January 2023 whistleblower report highlighted red flags with a former contractor. Voice submitted a public records request for the 2023 whistleblower report and others filed about the Harm Reduction Coalition of San Diego, hoping to reveal what the county knew about potential improprieties before its former chief operating officer faced felony charges.  

The county refused to hand over the documents.  

In response to Voice, county public records staff wrote that Auditor and Controller Tracy Drager made the call not to release the records. 

“The public interest served by not disclosing requested records clearly outweighs the public interest served by disclosure of the records, as the disclosure of such documents, including complaints filed by others, would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy and have a chilling effect upon the filing of such complaints, especially when those that file such complaints have an expectation that the complaints will not be made public,” an unnamed county staffer wrote on the county’s records site. 

Drager’s denial of Voice’s request conflicts with state law requiring the release of misconduct records when allegations are substantiated, a standard that has helped Voice prevail in numerous cases involving school misconduct records. Drager’s decision also fails to note that the county could redact records to protect names of those who made whistleblower complaints or accusations it couldn’t confirm were accurate. 

About a year ago, Voice sued the county after it refused to release substantiated misconduct complaints leveled against officials in the county’s Behavioral Health Services department. The case remains ongoing. 

The California Public Records Act does not have any enforcement mechanism beyond civil lawsuits. Voice has repeatedly threatened to sue to force the release of other public records and often the county has then released the documents. That has led to stories that reveal new information. 

Among the recent examples: 

• The county took weeks to respond to Voice’s late January requests for records documenting a controversial and now-cancelled county bidding process to hire lobbyists to push for state legislation to pave the way for tax hikes. In March, Voice threatened to sue if records weren’t released by mid-March. The county soon released an initial tranche of records and Voice cited some of them in a March 20 story, namely emails between a supervisor’s chief of staff and the county’s top manager over frustrations about the process. 
• The county denied Voice’s December request for misconduct records and investigations into Chief Pharmacy Officer Emily Do’s second gig as a partner at a New York law firm that represents pharmaceutical companies. Voice threatened to sue the county in mid-January after it claimed the records were exempt from release. The county soon agreed to release the documents and Voice published a story about the investigation into Do. The probe found that Do failed to fully disclose a side gig that presented a potential conflict of interest. 
• In February, Voice requested any audits the county conducted after cancelling its two contracts with the nonprofit in June 2025. On Feb. 20, the county said it could not release a report responsive to Voice’s request because it was protected by attorney-client privilege. Voice threatened to test that argument in court. The county ultimately released the document in early March and Voice published a March 9 story about the 2025 review which uncovered a slew of issues, including shortcomings of county oversight. After responding to questions from Voice on this topic, county spokesperson Tim McClain told Voice the county is done answering questions on the debacle surrounding the Harm Reduction Coalition as a criminal investigation remains ongoing. 

In a separate statement, county spokesperson Tammy Glenn argued the county “is committed to transparency in our work to serve the community through programs and services that support health, safety and well-being.” 

Glenn noted that the county is also balancing various interests as it weighs how to respond to records requests. 

“We will continue to work with all requestors and provide records in accordance with the California Public Records Act,” Glenn wrote. “This includes complying with the Public Records Act requirements to maintain the confidentiality of certain information such as health and employee records, and also to balance additional disclosures involving other protected areas.” 

Attorney Felix Tinkov, who is representing Voice, argued the county should be balancing more in the direction of disclosure and following precedent that the state legislature and the courts have established. 

“The county regularly engages in unlawful obstruction to put off disclosure of embarrassing facts, wasting taxpayer resources to keep the public in the dark,” Tinkov said. “Voice of San Diego will continue to make requests for public records and stands ready to litigate so long as the county opts to avoid its duties under the law.” 

Voice reached out to all five county supervisors’ offices to inquire about the county’s responses to Voice’s records requests and its use of county resources to try to avoid disclosing records. 

A spokesperson for South Bay Supervisor Paloma Aguirre said she “remains a strong advocate for transparency” but noted she doesn’t oversee Public Records Act requests that aren’t directed to her office. Aguirre’s office said she does work closely with her team to ensure requests that come to her office receive a timely response. 

In response to a question on the use of county resources to tangle with Voice and others who fight with the county over denied records requests, Aguirre spokesperson Diane Castaneda said the supervisor is “always concerned with the efficient use of taxpayer resources.” 

“Her goal is to ensure the county is as proactive as possible so that legal intervention becomes the exception, not the rule,” Aguirre said.  

East County Supervisor Joel Anderson, who has recently teamed with Aguirre on a public subcommittee and pushed reforms to force more transparency for other committees now operating behind closed doors, was more blunt. 

“If I could control my colleagues’ votes, we would be a lot more transparent to the people we serve,” Anderson said. “My constituents deserve that transparency and having us look at more ways that the county can be effective, efficient, and accountable.” 

Lawson-Remer, Vice Chair Monica Montgomery Steppe and Supervisor Jim Desmond’s offices did not respond to questions from Voice. 

The post As County Leaders Tout Transparency, They Fight Public Records Releases appeared first on Voice of San Diego.