Sara Rubin here, with a story about public records access. When I first heard last year that TED was returning to Monterey, where the now-global phenomenon first began in 1984, I was intrigued. Speakers included stars like the singer Lizzo and sci-fi author Kim Stanley Robinson.
The nonprofit TED—that’s Technology, Entertainment and Design—is best known for hosting short, well produced talks. TED Talks have launched people from relative obscurity to fame, elevating their ideas and taking them mainstream.
It seems we are overdue for a TED Talk on public records access. (Spoiler alert: Eight months after this battle began, the Weekly got 736 pages with records that TED sought to withhold and they contain… a giant nothingburger.)
I first reached out to TED’s media team on May 27, 2021 with a few innocuous questions, such as “Can you tell me why you are returning to Monterey this year?” Faced with obstruction on every question – no, they would not help coordinate interviews with speakers (don’t worry, we found them ourselves); no, media could not attend – we decided to seek answers elsewhere. On June 23, the Weekly filed a California Public Records Act with the city of Monterey, asking for correspondence related to TED, hoping to find an answer to “why Monterey?”
In journalism, that’s a pretty standard-issue request and for Monterey, a pretty standard-issue release. But what we got on July 27 were 975 pages so heavily redacted – in some cases, entire pages were blacked out – that it was impossible to discern the context.
There are exceptions to the Public Records Act – things like hotel pricing or personal phone numbers. But TED officials claimed a nondisclosure agreement with the city meant they could dodge the Public Records Act, demanding redactions well beyond what the city suggested. “The city’s objective is to comply with the law, which means complying with the CPRA and the NDA, and they’re reconcilable,” Monterey City Attorney Christine Davi says.
TED, however, did not see them as reconcilable. In the ensuing months – after the conference was over – TED General Counsel Nishat Ruiter argued that trade secret protections covered pretty much everything. In a five-page letter to Davi on Nov. 18, she emphasized TED’s virtues, as if that creates an exception: “As you are aware, TED is a nonprofit organization that seeks to improve the world through spreading powerful ideas and encourages individuals to engage in meaningful conversations that can lead to a better future. The reason that TED has been so successful in its mission and has made such a positive impact on society is due to its know-how in planning and operating conferences, which constitute trade secrets.”
Virtue, however, is not an exception listed in the CPRA.
Nonetheless, Ruiter arrived at this back-flip: “The public is better served by holding TED’s trade secrets in confidence so that TED can continue to carry out its mission on behalf of the public.”
The city of Monterey was caught between two obligations: to TED’s interpretation of the CPRA, and the actual CPRA. On Dec. 15, Monterey City Council discussed potential litigation, worried TED might sue. “The city intends to produce public records that TED argues are confidential,” per council’s agenda. Davi ultimately chose (rightly) the side of disclosure and on Feb. 8, re-released hundreds of pages to the Weekly – this time redacted sensibly, with things like phone numbers blacked out.
What’s revealed are hundreds of mundane emails about things like scheduling and wi-fi connectivity. Ironically, answers to the Weekly’s initial question are there too.
On Nov. 19, 2020, Head of Conferences Kelly Stoetzel wrote to Monterey County Health Officer Edward Moreno about Covid protocols, and greeted him this way: “We are looking forward with great hope to bringing TED back to its birthplace in Monterey. Our attendees are hopeful and excited too.” In another email, Conference Production Director Kyle Shearer wrote: “We’re thrilled to be returning to Monterey and working with you again!”
That was, perhaps, until they realized that doing business with a public entity means it’s in public view.
Read full newsletter here.