| This is my personal story of 
              requesting public records at UCLA, a University that did not want 
              to comply with the Freedom of Information Act. When I submitted 
              an opinion piece for the UCLA paper to publicize this, they called 
              me back immediately and said they would publish my article the following 
              day. Several hours later I was informed that my article was damaging 
              and could not be printed without addressing the University's point 
              of view. This is not the standard response to controversial opinion 
              pieces and appeared to be another attempt to shield the public from 
              information that might cause people to question what goes on behind 
              closed doors. Animal experimentation is a trillion dollar industry 
              that survives only because people do not question it. I hope that 
              by documenting my story, more people will consider why it is so 
              difficult to get accurate information regarding animal research 
              from the institutions sponsoring the experiments.
 
 Erica Sutherland
 
 
  On October 15, 2001, nine members of UCLA Students for Animal 
              Liberation requested public records pertaining to the nine UCLA 
              researchers who use non-human primates in their experiments. We 
              were pleased to receive confirmation of our requests postmarked 
              October 23.
 
 On November 14, 2001, the records were ready. We received 
              a letter informing us that the Information Practices Office had 
              gathered 1,488 pages of documentation on seven of the researchers. 
              We were informed that copies of these records would cost $148.80, 
              at ten cents a page. When I arrived with my check, Ms. Linda Arquieta 
              of the Information Practices Office awkwardly said that the documents 
              were actually not ready; she would contact me as soon as they were.
 
 I became impatient as winter break drew to a close. I called Ms. 
              Arquieta on December 3 to ask her what was taking so long. She said 
              that she would make her best effort to get me the records by the 
              end of the following week. When I called her a week later, she apologized 
              for the wait and promised me the documents by the first week of 
              January 2002. I was confused; the letter I received in November 
              clearly indicated that the records were ready. Ms. Arquieta claimed 
              that the researchers were concerned that I would "steal their 
              research ideas," so they chose to review each page, being very 
              careful about which ones to give out.
 
 The first week of January came and went, and still I did not receive 
              any documents. Ms. Arquieta insisted that the Information Practices 
              Office was very busy, and they would fulfill my request when they 
              had time. It had already been three months.
 
 In mid-February, Ms. Arquieta explained that "the lawyers" 
              were currently going through the requested documents, and they would 
              be done soon. She said that it was not her fault that the documents 
              were taking so long and complained that it was not right to target 
              my dissatisfaction towards her. I said that a great way to alleviate 
              these feelings would be to provide me with the lawyers' phone numbers. 
              If they were the ones taking so long, they were the ones who deserved 
              my complaints. Ms. Arquieta refused to give me their numbers but 
              promised she would give them mine. She also promised that they would 
              call me within the next few days.
 
 It was not much of a shock when the lawyers did not call in the 
              next few days, or ever for that matter.
 
 On March 15, I wrote a letter to UCLA Chancellor, Albert Carnesale. 
              I defined the Freedom of Information Act and explained that UCLA 
              was violating the law by refusing to provide public records. I urged 
              the Chancellor to contact Ms. Arquieta and ask her to adhere to 
              the law. I immediately received a letter from Arquieta's supervisor 
              at the Information Practices Office promising me the records by 
              the first week of April.
 
 The first week of April passed, and still no records. On April 
              17, I applied for a meeting with Chancellor Carnesale. My request 
              was denied.
 
 On April 25, during World Week for Animals in Laboratories, fifty 
              activists attempted to gain entry into the Chancellor's office. 
              When his secretary locked the glass doors, the activists piled up 
              in the hallway. Activists on two megaphones explained that UCLA 
              was refusing to hand over public records regarding current experiments 
              on primates. Activists then began chanting and demanding the public 
              records. Media from multiple news stations crowded to film the disturbance.
 
 On May 7, I delivered a comprehensive packet to Chancellor Carnesale, 
              which included documentation of my efforts to obtain the records. 
              Among other things, I included all correspondence I had received 
              from the Information Practices Office, a copy of the Freedom of 
              Information Act, and a copy of my original list of the researchers 
              whose records I wanted.
 
 During the last week of May, I received a letter from the Information 
              Practices Office informing me that the packet sent to the Chancellor 
              had been forwarded to them, and that the documents were ready. Strangely, 
              only 338 pages were available-1,110 pages less than were gathered 
              in November. On May 31, 2002, I picked up the documents. It took 
              almost eight months-almost one full school year.
 
 Thrilled as I was to finally receive records, they were not exactly 
              what I had asked for. The following are examples of UCLA's noncompliance 
              with my request: 1) instead of receiving documentation on a requested 
              experiment using primates, I received the records for the researcher's 
              experiment on rats; 2) I also received the records of a researcher 
              whose records I had not requested. These particular records were 
              not even records on primate experimentation; 3) I received only 
              two necropsy reports and no information about individual primates; 
              and 4) Ms. Arquieta claimed that two researchers are not using any 
              animal subjects, although the National Institute of Health indicates 
              otherwise.
 
 Clearly, my pursuit for records is not over. Ms. Arquieta once 
              asked, in exasperation, "If I give you these documents, will 
              you leave me alone?" and I said, "Yes, when you give me 
              everything I originally asked for, I will be done." My statement 
              remains true. 
 
 
 Erica Sutherland is an honors student at UCLA pursuing a degree 
              in sociology with a minor in policy studies. She is scheduled to 
              graduate in 2004.  
 
 
 Home Page | Our Mission | NewsWhat Are Primate Freedom 
  Tags | Order Tag
 Primate Research 
  Centers | Resources
 |