SB 272 Enterprise Systems - Immediate Disclosure Request
It is a clone of this request.
| Tracking # |
19-3663 |
| Submitted | Aug. 21, 2019 |
| Est. Completion | Sept. 3, 2019 |
MuckRock users can file, duplicate, track, and share public records requests like this one. Learn more.
Communications
From: twitter.com/journo_anon Public Records Requester
Good afternoon,
This is a new Immediate Disclosure Request under the San Francisco Sunshine Ordinance, made before end of business August 21, 2019 directed to agency: " San Francisco City Attorney ".
** Note that all of your responses (including disclosed records) may be automatically and instantly available to the public on the MuckRock.com service used to issue this request (though I am not a MuckRock representative). **
I request under the San Francisco Sunshine Ordinance (Ordinance) and the California Public Records Act (CPRA):
1. IMMEDIATE DISCLOSURE: your catalog of all of your department's enterprise systems, as defined by SB 272 / Gov Code 6270.5
2. regular disclosure timeline: internal memos/directives/orders/emails/changelogs of your 2018 and 2019 updates to the catalog, or any other writings evidencing your agency's compliance with Gov Code 6270.5(f): "The local agency shall complete and post the catalog required by this section by July 1, 2016, and **thereafter shall update the catalog annually**." (emphasis mine)
PDFs, archived webpages (but not merely a URL), and spreadsheets are all acceptable formats under Admin Code 67.21(l).
Gov Code 6270.5 reads in relevant part: "6270.5. (a) In implementing this chapter, each local agency, except a local educational agency, shall create a catalog of enterprise systems. The catalog shall be made publicly available upon request in the office of the person or officer designated by the agency’s legislative body. The catalog shall be posted in a prominent location on the local agency’s Internet Web site, if the agency has an Internet Web site. The catalog shall disclose a list of the enterprise systems utilized by the agency and, for each system, shall also disclose all of the following: ..."
Since Gov Code 6270.5 requires you to have this catalog, and to have already published it to your website, you should be able to produce it immediately. I am explicitly requesting a copy be sent to me, not just a URL, as I want a specific version I can use as evidence in any appeals/complaint process I pursue.
If the catalog fails to accurately reflect the requirements of 6270.5, I may pursue corrective action, including with the SOTF (Gov Code 6270.5 is incorporated by reference into the Sunshine Ordinance via SF Admin Code 67.21(k)).
My brief perusal of at least one version of the SB 272 catalog for SF ( https://data.sfgov.org/widgets/ebux-gcnq ) shows that many city agencies' catalogs appear to be incomplete.
If your department currently is a respondent before the SOTF in one of my cases re: electronic records, I also intend to use this information to demonstrate why certain electronic formats should be available to the public within the meaning of Gov Code 67.21(l).
Please provide only those copies of records available without any fees. If you determine certain records would require fees, please instead provide the required notice of which of those records are available and non-exempt for inspection in-person if we so choose.
I look forward to your immediate disclosure.
Sincerely,
Anonymous
From: San Francisco City Attorney
I am writing on behalf of the San Francisco City Attorney’s Office in response to your below records request. We received your request this morning. Here is the link to a list which is maintained by Data SF which includes the information responsive to item 1 of your request: https://data.sfgov.org/City-Management-and-Ethics/Inventory-of-citywide-enterprise-systems-of-record/ebux-gcnq. We will provide a further response by tomorrow’s due date on the remainder of your request.
Please send replies to cityattorney@sfcityatty.org<mailto:cityattorney@sfcityatty.org>
Sincerely,
[cid:image002.jpg@01D55907.22EA4800]Elizabeth A. Coolbrith
Paralegal
Office of City Attorney Dennis Herrera
(415) 554-4685 Direct
www.sfcityattorney.org
Find us on: Facebook<https://www.facebook.com/sfcityattorney/> Twitter<https://twitter.com/SFCityAttorney> Instagram<https://www.instagram.com/sfcityattorney/>
From: San Francisco City Attorney
As a follow-up, since portion two was requested on a standard timeline, we reserve our right to respond to that portion by close of business on 9/03/19. In the event we are able to respond prior to the 10-day mark, however, we will aim to do so.
Please send replies to cityattorney@sfcityatty.org<mailto:cityattorney@sfcityatty.org>
Sincerely,
[cid:image003.jpg@01D55992.B3A1A470]Elizabeth A. Coolbrith
Paralegal
Office of City Attorney Dennis Herrera
(415) 554-4685 Direct
www.sfcityattorney.org
Find us on: Facebook<https://www.facebook.com/sfcityattorney/> Twitter<https://twitter.com/SFCityAttorney> Instagram<https://www.instagram.com/sfcityattorney/>
From: twitter.com/journo_anon Public Records Requester
** Note that all of your responses (including disclosed records) may be automatically and instantly available to the public on the MuckRock.com service used to issue this request (though I am not a MuckRock representative). **
Thank you. Please note I stated "PDFs, archived webpages (but not merely a URL), and spreadsheets are all acceptable formats under Admin Code 67.21(l)."
I want a concrete file copy, not a URL, provided by your department so we have some specific version of the record over which disputes can be resolved. Such a copy would be easily generated (67.21(l)).
Regardless, your link appears to indicate that your department has only 3 enterprise systems (see attachment). If this is indeed your department's full catalog, I will be alleging a violation of SFAC 67.21(k) which incorporates by reference Gov Code 6270.5, due to failure to disclose all of your enterprise systems, without justification. At the very least there must be an email/calendar server (such as Microsoft Exchange), with either you or the Dept. of Tech. as the custodian. Email and calendaring servers are "enterprise systems" within the meaning of 6270.5 because they (a) contain information collected about the public (such as emails the public sends you, including this very email, or meetings you have with members of the public) and (b) are the original source of email/calendar data. For example, the Dept. of Public Health declares their email system as Microsoft Exchange in the same link you provided.
Sincerely,
Anonymous
From: twitter.com/journo_anon Public Records Requester
** Note that all of your responses (including disclosed records) may be automatically and instantly available to the public on the MuckRock.com service used to issue this request (though I am not a MuckRock representative). **
[Resending with attachment]
Thank you. Please note I stated "PDFs, archived webpages (but not merely a URL), and spreadsheets are all acceptable formats under Admin Code 67.21(l)."
I want a concrete file copy, not a URL, provided by your department so we have some specific version of the record over which disputes can be resolved. Such a copy would be easily generated (67.21(l)).
Regardless, your link appears to indicate that your department has only 3 enterprise systems (see attachment). If this is indeed your department's full catalog, I will be alleging a violation of SFAC 67.21(k) which incorporates by reference Gov Code 6270.5, due to failure to disclose all of your enterprise systems, without justification. At the very least there must be an email/calendar server (such as Microsoft Exchange), with either you or the Dept. of Tech. as the custodian. Email and calendaring servers are "enterprise systems" within the meaning of 6270.5 because they (a) contain information collected about the public (such as emails the public sends you, including this very email, or meetings you have with members of the public) and (b) are the original source of email/calendar data. For example, the Dept. of Public Health declares their email system as Microsoft Exchange in the same link you provided.
Sincerely,
Anonymous
From: San Francisco City Attorney
With respect to your request for a PDF, our office does not have the catalog in PDF form. The catalog is maintained by DT and is on the DT website that we directed you to. You may contact DT directly if you wish to request the catalog in a format other than what is already online.
Please send replies to cityattorney@sfcityatty.org<mailto:cityattorney@sfcityatty.org>
Sincerely,
[cid:image002.jpg@01D559B5.F9383260]Elizabeth A. Coolbrith
Paralegal
Office of City Attorney Dennis Herrera
(415) 554-4685 Direct
www.sfcityattorney.org
Find us on: Facebook<https://www.facebook.com/sfcityattorney/> Twitter<https://twitter.com/SFCityAttorney> Instagram<https://www.instagram.com/sfcityattorney/>
From: twitter.com/journo_anon Public Records Requester
Thank you. I will in fact forward this request to the Department of Technology. However, I do so under protest because your department is a local agency responsible for maintaining its own enterprise system catalog and responsible providing me the information requested.
From: twitter.com/journo_anon Public Records Requester
Dept. of Technology,
This is an IMMEDIATE DISCLOSURE REQUEST under the Sunshine Ordinance, made before end of business August 28, 2019 directed to your agency.
Note that I originally requested the City Attorney's SB 272 catalog from the City Attorney's office, but I was directed to reach out to Dept of Tech for further info so I am doing so.
** Note that all of your responses (including disclosed records) may be automatically and instantly available to the public on the MuckRock.com service used to issue this request (though I am not a MuckRock representative). **
I request under the San Francisco Sunshine Ordinance (Ordinance) and the California Public Records Act (CPRA):
1. IMMEDIATE DISCLOSURE: the catalog of all of the City Attorney's and the Dept of Technology's enterprise systems, as defined by SB 272 / Gov Code 6270.5
2. regular disclosure timeline: internal memos/directives/orders/emails/changelogs of your 2018 and 2019 updates to the enterprise system catalog, or any other writings evidencing your agency's compliance with Gov Code 6270.5(f): "The local agency shall complete and post the catalog required by this section by July 1, 2016, and **thereafter shall update the catalog annually**." (emphasis mine)
PDFs, archived webpages (but not merely a URL), and spreadsheets are all acceptable formats under Admin Code 67.21(l).
Gov Code 6270.5 reads in relevant part: "6270.5. (a) In implementing this chapter, each local agency, except a local educational agency, shall create a catalog of enterprise systems. The catalog shall be made publicly available upon request in the office of the person or officer designated by the agency’s legislative body. The catalog shall be posted in a prominent location on the local agency’s Internet Web site, if the agency has an Internet Web site. The catalog shall disclose a list of the enterprise systems utilized by the agency and, for each system, shall also disclose all of the following: ..."
Since Gov Code 6270.5 requires you to have this catalog, and to have already published it to your website, you should be able to produce it immediately. Under Gov Code 6253(f), I am explicitly requesting a *copy* be sent to me, not just a URL, as I want a specific version I can use as evidence in any appeals/complaint process I pursue.
If the catalog fails to accurately reflect the requirements of 6270.5, I may pursue corrective action, including with the SOTF (Gov Code 6270.5 is incorporated by reference into the Sunshine Ordinance via SF Admin Code 67.21(k)).
My brief perusal of at least one version of the SB 272 catalog for SF ( https://data.sfgov.org/widgets/ebux-gcnq ) shows that many city agencies' catalogs appear to be incomplete. The version linked by the City Attorney's office seems woefully incomplete.
I also intend to use this information to demonstrate why certain electronic formats should be available to the public within the meaning of Gov Code 67.21(l).
Please provide only those copies of records available without any fees. If you determine certain records would require fees, please instead provide the required notice of which of those records are available and non-exempt for inspection in-person if we so choose.
I look forward to your immediate disclosure.
Sincerely,
Anonymous
From: twitter.com/journo_anon Public Records Requester
The below immediate disclosure request was sent to Dept of Technology on Aug. 28. Therefore a response was due yesterday Aug. 29.
Please respond immediately.
Dept. of Technology,
This is an IMMEDIATE DISCLOSURE REQUEST under the Sunshine Ordinance, made before end of business August 28, 2019 directed to your agency.
Note that I originally requested the City Attorney's SB 272 catalog from the City Attorney's office, but I was directed to reach out to Dept of Tech for further info so I am doing so.
** Note that all of your responses (including disclosed records) may be automatically and instantly available to the public on the MuckRock.com service used to issue this request (though I am not a MuckRock representative). **
I request under the San Francisco Sunshine Ordinance (Ordinance) and the California Public Records Act (CPRA):
1. IMMEDIATE DISCLOSURE: the catalog of all of the City Attorney's and the Dept of Technology's enterprise systems, as defined by SB 272 / Gov Code 6270.5
2. regular disclosure timeline: internal memos/directives/orders/emails/changelogs of your 2018 and 2019 updates to the enterprise system catalog, or any other writings evidencing your agency's compliance with Gov Code 6270.5(f): "The local agency shall complete and post the catalog required by this section by July 1, 2016, and **thereafter shall update the catalog annually**." (emphasis mine)
PDFs, archived webpages (but not merely a URL), and spreadsheets are all acceptable formats under Admin Code 67.21(l).
Gov Code 6270.5 reads in relevant part: "6270.5. (a) In implementing this chapter, each local agency, except a local educational agency, shall create a catalog of enterprise systems. The catalog shall be made publicly available upon request in the office of the person or officer designated by the agency’s legislative body. The catalog shall be posted in a prominent location on the local agency’s Internet Web site, if the agency has an Internet Web site. The catalog shall disclose a list of the enterprise systems utilized by the agency and, for each system, shall also disclose all of the following: ..."
Since Gov Code 6270.5 requires you to have this catalog, and to have already published it to your website, you should be able to produce it immediately. Under Gov Code 6253(f), I am explicitly requesting a *copy* be sent to me, not just a URL, as I want a specific version I can use as evidence in any appeals/complaint process I pursue.
If the catalog fails to accurately reflect the requirements of 6270.5, I may pursue corrective action, including with the SOTF (Gov Code 6270.5 is incorporated by reference into the Sunshine Ordinance via SF Admin Code 67.21(k)).
My brief perusal of at least one version of the SB 272 catalog for SF ( https://data.sfgov.org/widgets/ebux-gcnq ) shows that many city agencies' catalogs appear to be incomplete. The version linked by the City Attorney's office seems woefully incomplete.
I also intend to use this information to demonstrate why certain electronic formats should be available to the public within the meaning of Gov Code 67.21(l).
Please provide only those copies of records available without any fees. If you determine certain records would require fees, please instead provide the required notice of which of those records are available and non-exempt for inspection in-person if we so choose.
I look forward to your immediate disclosure.
Sincerely,
Anonymous
From: twitter.com/journo_anon Public Records Requester
SOTF,
Attached is a new complaint re: SB 272 against both the Dept. of Technology and City Attorney's office. The complaints arise out of a single original request that the City Attorney requested we also direct to Dept. of Tech. so only one complaint is filed.
This complaint is not related to my prior complaints.
I would appreciate confirmation of receipt. I will also fill out your webform.
Complainant Name: (Anonymous - use email requests@muckrock.com)
Date of Request: August 21 and 28, 2019
Alleged Violations: SFAC 67.21, 67.25, 67.26, 67.27; and Gov Code 6270.5, 6253 (incorporated by reference, and under your jurisdiction, via SFAC 67.21(k))
Complaint Against Employees (listed by official capacity): Linda Gerull (Chief Information Officer/Director of Technology), Dennis Herrera (City Attorney), Elizabeth Coolbrith (Paralegal, City Attorney’s office)
Complaint Against Agency: Department of Technology and Office of City Attorney
Thanks,
Anonymous
From: San Francisco City Attorney
Dear Anonymous:
Received. Your Complaint will be divided into two separate cases (Dept. of Technology 19094) and (City Attorney 19095). Have a nice weekend.
Cheryl Leger
Assistant Clerk, Board of Supervisors
Tel: 415-554-7724
[CustomerSatisfactionIcon]<http://www.sfbos.org/index.aspx?page=104> Click here<http://www.sfbos.org/index.aspx?page=104> to complete a Board of Supervisors Customer Service Satisfaction form.
The Legislative Research Center<http://www.sfbos.org/index.aspx?page=9681> provides 24-hour access to Board of Supervisors legislation, and archived matters since August 1998.
Disclosures: Personal information that is provided in communications to the Board of Supervisors is subject to disclosure under the California Public Records Act and the San Francisco Sunshine Ordinance. Personal information provided will not be redacted. Members of the public are not required to provide personal identifying information when they communicate with the Board of Supervisors and its committees. All written or oral communications that members of the public submit to the Clerk's Office regarding pending legislation or hearings will be made available to all members of the public for inspection and copying. The Clerk's Office does not redact any information from these submissions. This means that personal information—including names, phone numbers, addresses and similar information that a member of the public elects to submit to the Board and its committees—may appear on the Board of Supervisors website or in other public documents that members of the public may inspect or copy.
From: twitter.com/journo_anon Public Records Requester
Thank you Ms. Leger!
Have a good weekend, as well,
Anonymous
From: San Francisco City Attorney
Good Morning:
Linda Gerull and the Department of Technology have been named as Respondents in the attached complaint filed with the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force. Please respond to the following complaint/request within five business days.
The Respondent is required to submit a written response to the allegations including any and all supporting documents, recordings, electronic media, etc., to the Task Force within five (5) business days of receipt of this notice. This is your opportunity to provide a full explanation to allow the Task Force to be fully informed in considering your response prior its meeting.
Please include the following information in your response if applicable:
1. List all relevant records with descriptions that have been provided pursuant to the Complainant request.
2. Date the relevant records were provided to the Complainant.
3. Description of the method used, along with any relevant search terms used, to search for the relevant records.
4. Statement/declaration that all relevant documents have been provided, does not exist, or has been excluded.
5. Copy of the original request for records (if applicable).
Please refer to the File Number when submitting any new information and/or supporting documents pertaining to this complaint.
The Complainant alleges:
Complaint Attached.
Cheryl Leger
Assistant Clerk, Board of Supervisors
Tel: 415-554-7724
<http://www.sfbos.org/index.aspx?page=104> Click here<http://www.sfbos.org/index.aspx?page=104> to complete a Board of Supervisors Customer Service Satisfaction form.
The Legislative Research Center<http://www.sfbos.org/index.aspx?page=9681> provides 24-hour access to Board of Supervisors legislation, and archived matters since August 1998.
Disclosures: Personal information that is provided in communications to the Board of Supervisors is subject to disclosure under the California Public Records Act and the San Francisco Sunshine Ordinance. Personal information provided will not be redacted. Members of the public are not required to provide personal identifying information when they communicate with the Board of Supervisors and its committees. All written or oral communications that members of the public submit to the Clerk's Office regarding pending legislation or hearings will be made available to all members of the public for inspection and copying. The Clerk's Office does not redact any information from these submissions. This means that personal information-including names, phone numbers, addresses and similar information that a member of the public elects to submit to the Board and its committees-may appear on the Board of Supervisors website or in other public documents that members of the public may inspect or copy.
-
image001
From: San Francisco City Attorney
We are following up on your request concerning the enterprise system catalog. We sent you the catalog on 8/22, and respectfully disagree with your contention regarding the meaning of the term “enterprise systems.” Finally, we decline to produce documents responsive to the second part of your request as they are exempt from disclosure under the attorney-client privilege (Cal. Gov’t Code § 6276.04; Cal. Evid. Code § 954) and work product privilege. (Cal. Gov’t Code § 6276.04; Cal. Code of Civil Pro. § 2018.030).
Please send replies to cityattorney@sfcityatty.org<mailto:cityattorney@sfcityatty.org>
Sincerely,
[cid:image002.jpg@01D56247.E5A60340]Elizabeth A. Coolbrith
Paralegal
Office of City Attorney Dennis Herrera
(415) 554-4685 Direct
www.sfcityattorney.org
Find us on: Facebook<https://www.facebook.com/sfcityattorney/> Twitter<https://twitter.com/SFCityAttorney> Instagram<https://www.instagram.com/sfcityattorney/>
From: San Francisco City Attorney
For your records.
Cheryl Leger
Assistant Clerk, Board of Supervisors
Tel: 415-554-7724
[CustomerSatisfactionIcon]<http://www.sfbos.org/index.aspx?page=104> Click here<http://www.sfbos.org/index.aspx?page=104> to complete a Board of Supervisors Customer Service Satisfaction form.
The Legislative Research Center<http://www.sfbos.org/index.aspx?page=9681> provides 24-hour access to Board of Supervisors legislation, and archived matters since August 1998.
Disclosures: Personal information that is provided in communications to the Board of Supervisors is subject to disclosure under the California Public Records Act and the San Francisco Sunshine Ordinance. Personal information provided will not be redacted. Members of the public are not required to provide personal identifying information when they communicate with the Board of Supervisors and its committees. All written or oral communications that members of the public submit to the Clerk's Office regarding pending legislation or hearings will be made available to all members of the public for inspection and copying. The Clerk's Office does not redact any information from these submissions. This means that personal information-including names, phone numbers, addresses and similar information that a member of the public elects to submit to the Board and its committees-may appear on the Board of Supervisors website or in other public documents that members of the public may inspect or copy.
-
image001
From: twitter.com/journo_anon Public Records Requester
Thank you very much Ms. Leger. Please send me the 19094 and 19095 replies by respondents to this email when ready.
From: San Francisco City Attorney
Will do.
Cheryl Leger
Assistant Clerk, Board of Supervisors
Tel: 415-554-7724
[CustomerSatisfactionIcon]<http://www.sfbos.org/index.aspx?page=104> Click here<http://www.sfbos.org/index.aspx?page=104> to complete a Board of Supervisors Customer Service Satisfaction form.
The Legislative Research Center<http://www.sfbos.org/index.aspx?page=9681> provides 24-hour access to Board of Supervisors legislation, and archived matters since August 1998.
Disclosures: Personal information that is provided in communications to the Board of Supervisors is subject to disclosure under the California Public Records Act and the San Francisco Sunshine Ordinance. Personal information provided will not be redacted. Members of the public are not required to provide personal identifying information when they communicate with the Board of Supervisors and its committees. All written or oral communications that members of the public submit to the Clerk's Office regarding pending legislation or hearings will be made available to all members of the public for inspection and copying. The Clerk's Office does not redact any information from these submissions. This means that personal information—including names, phone numbers, addresses and similar information that a member of the public elects to submit to the Board and its committees—may appear on the Board of Supervisors website or in other public documents that members of the public may inspect or copy.
From: San Francisco City Attorney
Here is the complaint. Let me know if you need anything further from me.
Cheryl Leger
Assistant Clerk, Board of Supervisors
Tel: 415-554-7724
[CustomerSatisfactionIcon]<http://www.sfbos.org/index.aspx?page=104> Click here<http://www.sfbos.org/index.aspx?page=104> to complete a Board of Supervisors Customer Service Satisfaction form.
The Legislative Research Center<http://www.sfbos.org/index.aspx?page=9681> provides 24-hour access to Board of Supervisors legislation, and archived matters since August 1998.
Disclosures: Personal information that is provided in communications to the Board of Supervisors is subject to disclosure under the California Public Records Act and the San Francisco Sunshine Ordinance. Personal information provided will not be redacted. Members of the public are not required to provide personal identifying information when they communicate with the Board of Supervisors and its committees. All written or oral communications that members of the public submit to the Clerk's Office regarding pending legislation or hearings will be made available to all members of the public for inspection and copying. The Clerk's Office does not redact any information from these submissions. This means that personal information-including names, phone numbers, addresses and similar information that a member of the public elects to submit to the Board and its committees-may appear on the Board of Supervisors website or in other public documents that members of the public may inspect or copy.
-
image001
From:
San Francisco
************************************************************************
Hi there
Your first San Francisco record request (request number #19-3663) has been submitted.
It is currently unpublished and is not available for the general public to view.
As the requester, you can always see the status of your
request by signing into the San Francisco Public Records
portal here.
If you haven't already activated your account,
click here to get started.
Once your account is activated, your request will be visible at the following link:
Request #19-3663.
************************************************************************
<em>Questions about your request?</em> Reply to this email or sign in to contact staff at San Francisco.<br></br><em>Technical support:</em> See our <a href='https://www.nextrequest.com/support'>help page</a>
From:
San Francisco
************************************************************************
Hi there
Record request #19-3663 has been closed. The closure reason supplied was:
Date: September 6, 2019
Dear Sir/Madam,
We now in receipt of your Immediate Disclosure Request today, September 6, 2019. We were able to locate your emailed request that was sent to mailbox dtis.helpdesk@sfgov.org. We had difficulty finding your email because it contained special characters that were picked up by our email filters as potential malware and it was not delivered to the service desk email account. Our website clearly shows how to submit a request to the request system. Please see attached picture of where you may find the link to "How to submit a public records request" from our website.
In the future please use the records request system to submit a request and ensure we are able to respond to your request in the shortest time possible. The following is the direct link to the system. https://sanfrancisco.nextrequest.com
In response to your request, the following two (2) links and PDF attachment are provided.
* https://index.sfgov.org/ - The City and County of San Francisco's Index to Records is made available to assist the public with access to City records. This is in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance. Ratified on:11/15/2018 4:08:07 PM
* https://data.sfgov.org/City-Management-and-Ethics/Inventory-of-citywide-enterprise-systems-of-record/ebux-gcnq - In compliance with CA Government Code 6270.5 (passed via SB 272), the City must publish a catalog of enterprise systems that collect data about the public. There are certain exceptions to this detailed in the Government Code. The code is available here: http://bit.ly/CAinventory. Updated September 5, 2019. The attached file is the PDF file for the system list.
This concludes your public records request. Sincerely, Arlene Licudine Custodian of Records
Department of Technology
************************************************************************
<em>Questions about your request?</em> Reply to this email or sign in to contact staff at San Francisco.<br></br><em>Technical support:</em> See our <a href='https://www.nextrequest.com/support'>help page</a>
From:
San Francisco
************************************************************************
Hi there
A document has been released to you for record request #19-3663:
* DTSite_PublicRecordsRequest_link_PIC.PNG
Document links are valid for one month.
After October 6, you will need to sign in to view the document(s).
************************************************************************
<em>Questions about your request?</em> Reply to this email or sign in to contact staff at San Francisco.<br></br><em>Technical support:</em> See our <a href='https://www.nextrequest.com/support'>help page</a>
From:
San Francisco
************************************************************************
Hi there
A document has been released to you for record request #19-3663:
* Inventory_of_citywide_enterprise_systems_of_record SF.pdf
Document links are valid for one month.
After October 6, you will need to sign in to view the document(s).
************************************************************************
<em>Questions about your request?</em> Reply to this email or sign in to contact staff at San Francisco.<br></br><em>Technical support:</em> See our <a href='https://www.nextrequest.com/support'>help page</a>
From: twitter.com/journo_anon Public Records Requester
Dept. of Technology,
Thank you. Please publish the request and responsive documents publicly - currently I get an error "Access to this request is currently limited. If you are the requester or staff you can:".
I do not wish to make or log into any accounts and agree to the NextRequest terms (which impose conditions on me beyond those of the CPRA, and therefore cannot be used to limit my access to public records).
Thanks,
Anonymous
From:
San Francisco
************************************************************************
Hi there
A document has been released for record request #19-3663:
* Inventory_of_citywide_enterprise_systems_of_record SF (version 1).pdf
Document links are valid for one month.
After October 10, you will need to sign in to view the document(s).
************************************************************************
<em>Questions about your request?</em> Reply to this email or sign in to contact staff at San Francisco.<br></br><em>Technical support:</em> See our <a href='https://www.nextrequest.com/support'>help page</a>
From: San Francisco City Attorney
San Francisco
************************************************************************
Hi there
A document has been released to you for record request #19-3663:
* SF Inventory of Citywide Enterprise Systems of Records (Gov Code 6270.5).pdf
Document links are valid for one month.
After October 11, you will need to sign in to view the document(s).
************************************************************************
<em>Questions about your request?</em> Reply to this email or sign in to contact staff at San Francisco.<br></br><em>Technical support:</em> See our <a href='https://www.nextrequest.com/support'>help page</a>
From: San Francisco City Attorney
San Francisco
************************************************************************
Hi there
A document has been released to you for record request #19-3663:
* SF Inventory of Citywide Enterprise Systems of Records (Gov Code 6270.5).pdf
Document links are valid for one month.
After October 11, you will need to sign in to view the document(s).
************************************************************************
<em>Questions about your request?</em> Reply to this email or sign in to contact staff at San Francisco.<br></br><em>Technical support:</em> See our <a href='https://www.nextrequest.com/support'>help page</a>
From: San Francisco City Attorney
San Francisco
************************************************************************
Hi there
A message was sent to you regarding record request #19-3663:
I sent you a better formatted PDF file for the SF Inventory of Citywide Enterprise Systems of Records.
Thank you for your patience.
************************************************************************
<em>Questions about your request?</em> Reply to this email or sign in to contact staff at San Francisco.<br></br><em>Technical support:</em> See our <a href='https://www.nextrequest.com/support'>help page</a>
From: San Francisco City Attorney
San Francisco
************************************************************************
Hi there
Record request #19-3663 has been published and is now available for public view.
************************************************************************
<em>Questions about your request?</em> Reply to this email or sign in to contact staff at San Francisco.<br></br><em>Technical support:</em> See our <a href='https://www.nextrequest.com/support'>help page</a>
From: San Francisco City Attorney
San Francisco
************************************************************************
Hi there
A document has been released for record request #19-3663:
* SF Inventory of Citywide Enterprise Systems of Records (Gov Code 6270.5).pdf
Document links are valid for one month.
After October 11, you will need to sign in to view the document(s).
************************************************************************
<em>Questions about your request?</em> Reply to this email or sign in to contact staff at San Francisco.<br></br><em>Technical support:</em> See our <a href='https://www.nextrequest.com/support'>help page</a>
From: twitter.com/journo_anon Public Records Requester
** FILE 19094 AND FILE 19095 **
SOTF,
1. Have responses by respondents been received by the Task Force in these cases? I believe they were due yesterday.
2. Please add this message and attachment to each of the files 19094 and 19095. It is the actual (belated) disclosed record by Dept of Tech, but is still missing all the required disclosures as alleged in my original complaint.
Thanks,
Anonymous
From: San Francisco City Attorney
Dear Anonymous:
I received the attached response yesterday. Let me know if you need anything further.
Cheryl Leger
Assistant Clerk, Board of Supervisors
Tel: 415-554-7724
[CustomerSatisfactionIcon]<http://www.sfbos.org/index.aspx?page=104> Click here<http://www.sfbos.org/index.aspx?page=104> to complete a Board of Supervisors Customer Service Satisfaction form.
The Legislative Research Center<http://www.sfbos.org/index.aspx?page=9681> provides 24-hour access to Board of Supervisors legislation, and archived matters since August 1998.
Disclosures: Personal information that is provided in communications to the Board of Supervisors is subject to disclosure under the California Public Records Act and the San Francisco Sunshine Ordinance. Personal information provided will not be redacted. Members of the public are not required to provide personal identifying information when they communicate with the Board of Supervisors and its committees. All written or oral communications that members of the public submit to the Clerk's Office regarding pending legislation or hearings will be made available to all members of the public for inspection and copying. The Clerk's Office does not redact any information from these submissions. This means that personal information—including names, phone numbers, addresses and similar information that a member of the public elects to submit to the Board and its committees—may appear on the Board of Supervisors website or in other public documents that members of the public may inspect or copy.
From: twitter.com/journo_anon Public Records Requester
**FILE 19094 and 19095**
Thank you.
Please include my attached rebuttal to File *19095*. Please also include it in the file that your DCA gets to perform a legal analysis.
I look forward to the Dept. of Tech's *19094* response as well.
Thanks,
Anonymous
From: twitter.com/journo_anon Public Records Requester
FYI - my rebuttal to the SOTF case 19095 to your response is attached. It may need to be directed to Mr. Coté.
Thanks,
Anonymous
From: twitter.com/journo_anon Public Records Requester
****FILE 19094 and FILE 19095****
SOTF,
First, I would like to point out for the record in both files that I mistakenly mis-cited the quote on page 4 of my rebuttal sent Sept. 11. That is not the opinion of the Cal. Court of Appeal, it is actually the opinion of the Cal. Supreme Court instead.
Second, has a response from Dept. of Tech been received in case 19094? I believe their 5 business day deadline is over.
Thanks!
Anonymous
From: San Francisco City Attorney
Dear Anonymous:
Attached please find responsive records.
Cheryl Leger
Assistant Clerk, Board of Supervisors
Tel: 415-554-7724
[CustomerSatisfactionIcon]<http://www.sfbos.org/index.aspx?page=104> Click here<http://www.sfbos.org/index.aspx?page=104> to complete a Board of Supervisors Customer Service Satisfaction form.
The Legislative Research Center<http://www.sfbos.org/index.aspx?page=9681> provides 24-hour access to Board of Supervisors legislation, and archived matters since August 1998.
Disclosures: Personal information that is provided in communications to the Board of Supervisors is subject to disclosure under the California Public Records Act and the San Francisco Sunshine Ordinance. Personal information provided will not be redacted. Members of the public are not required to provide personal identifying information when they communicate with the Board of Supervisors and its committees. All written or oral communications that members of the public submit to the Clerk's Office regarding pending legislation or hearings will be made available to all members of the public for inspection and copying. The Clerk's Office does not redact any information from these submissions. This means that personal information—including names, phone numbers, addresses and similar information that a member of the public elects to submit to the Board and its committees—may appear on the Board of Supervisors website or in other public documents that members of the public may inspect or copy.
From: twitter.com/journo_anon Public Records Requester
*** FILE 19094 ***
Thank you Ms. Leger.
I will write a full rebuttal letter later, but will note for now (to be added to file 19094) that Respondent claimed on Sept. 3 in the email thread you sent me that "Please know that the Department of Technology DID NOT receive any public records request from Muckrock so we will respond accordingly."
This is not true. I sent emails on both Aug. 28 and Aug. 29 requesting the records from DT.
On Sept. 6 Respondent emailed me:
"""We now in receipt of your Immediate Disclosure Request today, September 6, 2019. We were able to locate your emailed request that was sent to mailbox dtis.helpdesk@sfgov.org. We had difficulty finding your email because it contained special characters that were picked up by our email filters as potential malware and it was not delivered to the service desk email account. Our website clearly shows how to submit a request to the request system. Please see attached picture of where you may find the link to "How to submit a public records request" from our website.
In the future please use the records request system to submit a request and ensure we are able to respond to your request in the shortest time possible. The following is the direct link to the system. https://sanfrancisco.nextrequest.com"""
I have no obligation to use NextRequest, which imposes additional private Terms and Conditions not present in the CPRA.
SFAC 67.21(b) guarantees my right to request records by e-mail, which I properly did. I also have the raw emails I sent to DT on both days, which are simple text emails with formatting, and no attachments.
Thanks,
Anonymous
From: San Francisco City Attorney
Good Afternoon:
You are receiving this notice because you are named as a Complainant or Respondent in one of the following complaints scheduled before the Complaint Committee to: 1) hear the merits of the complaint; 2) issue a determination; and/or 3) consider referrals from a Task Force Committee.
Date: October 15, 2019
Location: City Hall, Room 408
Time: 5:30 p.m.
Complainants: Your attendance is required for this meeting/hearing.
Respondents/Departments: Pursuant to Section 67.21 (e) of the Ordinance, the custodian of records or a representative of your department, who can speak to the matter, is required at the meeting/hearing.
Complaints:
File No. 19084: Complaint filed by Mo Green against the City Attorney's Office for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Sections 67.21 and 67.25, by failing to respond to a request for documents in a timely and/or complete manner.
File No. 19085: Complaint filed by Mo Green against the Public Utilities Commission for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Sections 67.21 and 67.25, by failing to respond to a request for documents in a timely and/or complete.
File No. 19093: Complaint filed by Michael Petrelis against Mayor London Breed and the Office of the Mayor for allegedly violating Administrative Code, (Sunshine Ordinance) Sections 67.21 by failing to respond to a request for public records in a timely and/or complete manner.
File No. 19091: Complaint filed by Anonymous against Mayor London Breed, Hank Heckel and the Office of the Mayor for allegedly violating Administrative Code, (Sunshine Ordinance) Sections 67.21, 67.26, 67.27 and 67.29-7, by failing to respond to a request for public records in a timely and/or complete manner.
File No. 19094: Complaint filed by Anonymous against Linda Gerull and the Department of Technology for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Sections 67.21, 67.25, 67.26 and 67.27 by failing to respond to a public records request in a timely and/or complete manner.
Documentation (evidence supporting/disputing complaint)
For a document to be considered, it must be received at least five (5) working days before the hearing (see attached Public Complaint Procedure). For inclusion into the agenda packet, supplemental/supporting documents must be received by 5:00 pm, October 7, 2019.
From: twitter.com/journo_anon Public Records Requester
**** For inclusion into FILE 19094 and the Oct 15 agenda packet *****
SOTF/Mr. Young,
Please include the attached presentation into the 19094 file at the front for the convenience of the committee, and the attached response from DT.
In addition please include in the file: the 4 total emails (with all attachments) that I sent on Sept 11 (2 of them) and Sept 17 (2 of them).
Please confirm receipt of this email.
Thanks,
Anonymous
From: twitter.com/journo_anon Public Records Requester
Sup. of Records,
This is a new 67.21(d) petition re: both the City Attorney and DT. We appeal solely the following part of the Aug 22 request to the City Attorney:
"2. regular disclosure timeline: internal memos/directives/orders/emails/changelogs of your 2018 and 2019 updates to the catalog, or any other writings evidencing your agency's compliance with Gov Code 6270.5(f): "The local agency shall complete and post the catalog required by this section by July 1, 2016, and **thereafter shall update the catalog annually**." (emphasis mine)"
The City Attorney responded Sept. 3 "Finally, we decline to produce documents responsive to the second part of your request as they are exempt from disclosure under the attorney-client privilege (Cal. Gov’t Code § 6276.04; Cal. Evid. Code § 954) and work product privilege. (Cal. Gov’t Code § 6276.04; Cal. Code of Civil Pro. § 2018.030)."
To be clear I do not think that the A-C or W-P privileges stated apply to this part of my request. Herrera's systems catalog is not legal advice to his client, the City. Furthermore, the State Bar says the following about the W-P privilege [https://apps.calbar.ca.gov/mcleselfstudy/mcle_home.aspx?testid=70]:
> The statute does not define “work product.” Courts have considered the issue on a case-by-case basis and have generally concluded that only “derivative” or “interpretive” material, that is, “material created by or derived from an attorney’s work reflecting the attorney’s evaluation of the law or facts,” qualifies as work product. See Coito v. Superior Court, 54 Cal. 4th 480, 488 (2012). Nonderivative material, such as “the identity and location of physical evidence or witnesses,” does not constitute work product. Id. at 489.
I don't believe the identity, name, or versions of IT systems in your office could be attorney "work product." under the explanation above.
We also appeal the following Aug 28 follow-up request to DT:
"2. regular disclosure timeline: internal memos/directives/orders/emails/changelogs of your 2018 and 2019 updates to the enterprise system catalog, or any other writings evidencing your agency's compliance with Gov Code 6270.5(f): "The local agency shall complete and post the catalog required by this section by July 1, 2016, and **thereafter shall update the catalog annually**." (emphasis mine)"
DT has never responded with any response as far as I know, not even a statement that no responsive records exist nor that they have all been withheld.
Note we do not concede the Enterprise Systems Catalog was properly created in the other parts of the requests, but it appears you lack the jurisdiction to order correction of the catalog. That issue will proceed solely at SOTF.
Sincerely,
Anonymous
From: San Francisco City Attorney
Dear Anonymous:
Please call the following number for your appearance at tomorrow's Information Technology hearing: 415-554-9632. Please call that number at 4:30 pm so that I can be assured that you will be heard and that you can hear the proceeding. Thank you and please also let me know that you have received this email.
Cheryl Leger
Assistant Clerk, Board of Supervisors
Tel: 415-554-7724
[CustomerSatisfactionIcon]<http://www.sfbos.org/index.aspx?page=104> Click here<http://www.sfbos.org/index.aspx?page=104> to complete a Board of Supervisors Customer Service Satisfaction form.
The Legislative Research Center<http://www.sfbos.org/index.aspx?page=9681> provides 24-hour access to Board of Supervisors legislation, and archived matters since August 1998.
Disclosures: Personal information that is provided in communications to the Board of Supervisors is subject to disclosure under the California Public Records Act and the San Francisco Sunshine Ordinance. Personal information provided will not be redacted. Members of the public are not required to provide personal identifying information when they communicate with the Board of Supervisors and its committees. All written or oral communications that members of the public submit to the Clerk's Office regarding pending legislation or hearings will be made available to all members of the public for inspection and copying. The Clerk's Office does not redact any information from these submissions. This means that personal information-including names, phone numbers, addresses and similar information that a member of the public elects to submit to the Board and its committees-may appear on the Board of Supervisors website or in other public documents that members of the public may inspect or copy.
-
image001
From: twitter.com/journo_anon Public Records Requester
Will do Ms. Leger.
Mr. Young previously told me to use a different conf. call number every time.
They had fixed the podium audio issue with that system, so I hope it is fixed for this call number as well. He said there was a software issue they fixed.
Thanks!
From: San Francisco City Attorney
Dear Anonymous:
The number I provided is called a “bridge number” used by the Media Services Department here at City Hall. It functions the same way that other telephone appearances do. Let me know if you have other questions. Thank you.
Cheryl Leger
Assistant Clerk, Board of Supervisors
Tel: 415-554-7724
[CustomerSatisfactionIcon]<http://www.sfbos.org/index.aspx?page=104> Click here<http://www.sfbos.org/index.aspx?page=104> to complete a Board of Supervisors Customer Service Satisfaction form.
The Legislative Research Center<http://www.sfbos.org/index.aspx?page=9681> provides 24-hour access to Board of Supervisors legislation, and archived matters since August 1998.
Disclosures: Personal information that is provided in communications to the Board of Supervisors is subject to disclosure under the California Public Records Act and the San Francisco Sunshine Ordinance. Personal information provided will not be redacted. Members of the public are not required to provide personal identifying information when they communicate with the Board of Supervisors and its committees. All written or oral communications that members of the public submit to the Clerk's Office regarding pending legislation or hearings will be made available to all members of the public for inspection and copying. The Clerk's Office does not redact any information from these submissions. This means that personal information—including names, phone numbers, addresses and similar information that a member of the public elects to submit to the Board and its committees—may appear on the Board of Supervisors website or in other public documents that members of the public may inspect or copy.
From: San Francisco City Attorney
Dear Anonymous:
The Media Services Department would prefer that we use the following information for your telephone appearance tomorrow at the Information Technology Hearing. Please dial 877-402-9753 and use participant code 5547726. Thank you and please let me know if you have questions. I apologize for any confusion.
Cheryl Leger
Assistant Clerk, Board of Supervisors
Tel: 415-554-7724
[CustomerSatisfactionIcon]<http://www.sfbos.org/index.aspx?page=104> Click here<http://www.sfbos.org/index.aspx?page=104> to complete a Board of Supervisors Customer Service Satisfaction form.
The Legislative Research Center<http://www.sfbos.org/index.aspx?page=9681> provides 24-hour access to Board of Supervisors legislation, and archived matters since August 1998.
Disclosures: Personal information that is provided in communications to the Board of Supervisors is subject to disclosure under the California Public Records Act and the San Francisco Sunshine Ordinance. Personal information provided will not be redacted. Members of the public are not required to provide personal identifying information when they communicate with the Board of Supervisors and its committees. All written or oral communications that members of the public submit to the Clerk's Office regarding pending legislation or hearings will be made available to all members of the public for inspection and copying. The Clerk's Office does not redact any information from these submissions. This means that personal information-including names, phone numbers, addresses and similar information that a member of the public elects to submit to the Board and its committees-may appear on the Board of Supervisors website or in other public documents that members of the public may inspect or copy.
-
image001
From: twitter.com/journo_anon Public Records Requester
I will use 877-402-9753 and the associated passcode.
From: San Francisco City Attorney
City and County of San Francisco
************************************************************************
Hi there
Record request #19-3663 has been reopened. You can see it anytime at the link below.
************************************************************************
<em>Questions about your request?</em> Reply to this email or sign in to contact staff at City and County of San Francisco.<br></br><em>Technical support:</em> See our <a href='https://www.nextrequest.com/support'>help page</a>
From: San Francisco City Attorney
City and County of San Francisco
************************************************************************
Hi there
A message was sent to you regarding record request #19-3663:
The Department of Technology is responding to #2 in this request:
* IMMEDIATE DISCLOSURE: the catalog of all of the City Attorney's and the Dept of Technology's enterprise systems, as defined by SB 272 / Gov Code 6270.5 – PDF record provided September 5.
* regular disclosure timeline: internal memos/directives/orders/emails/changelogs of your 2018 and 2019 updates to the enterprise system catalog, or any other writings evidencing your agency's compliance with Gov Code 6270.5(f): "The local agency shall complete and post the catalog required by this section by July 1, 2016, and **thereafter shall update the catalog annually**." (emphasis mine)
We apologize for not responding to the second portion of your request. This was an oversight and we appreciate you bringing this to our attention (email from arecordsrequestor@pm.me, October 18, 2019, Subject: Sunshine #19094 – DT, offer of compromise, please resolve factual inconsistencies. Arecordsrequestor wrote: I do not believe DT has ever responded to the non-IDR request. Do you agree? I don't see a statement that there are no responsive records, that there are responsive records but they were withheld (with reasons), or any released records. I believe such a response was required under SFAC 67.21, and was due long ago. DT did not comment about this at the Oct 15 hearing.
The Department of Technology has searched for responsive records and we do not have any records that are responsive to the request. The inventory of enterprise systems was created in July 1, 2016 and the Department has not implemented any new enterprise systems which would require updating the City listing. https://data.sfgov.org/City-Management-and-Ethics/Inventory-of-citywide-enterprise-systems-of-record/ebux-gcnq .
************************************************************************
<em>Questions about your request?</em> Reply to this email or sign in to contact staff at City and County of San Francisco.<br></br><em>Technical support:</em> See our <a href='https://www.nextrequest.com/support'>help page</a>
From: San Francisco City Attorney
City and County of San Francisco
************************************************************************
Hi there
Record request #19-3663 has been closed. The closure reason supplied was:
This concludes your public records request.
************************************************************************
<em>Questions about your request?</em> Reply to this email or sign in to contact staff at City and County of San Francisco.<br></br><em>Technical support:</em> See our <a href='https://www.nextrequest.com/support'>help page</a>
From: San Francisco City Attorney
City and County of San Francisco
************************************************************************
Hi there
Record request #19-3663 has been published and is now available for public view.
************************************************************************
<em>Questions about your request?</em> Reply to this email or sign in to contact staff at City and County of San Francisco.<br></br><em>Technical support:</em> See our <a href='https://www.nextrequest.com/support'>help page</a>
From: San Francisco City Attorney
City and County of San Francisco
************************************************************************
Hi there
A message was sent to you regarding record request #19-3663:
In reference to Sunshine #19094
The Department of Technology is responding to the following:
* People have a right not to use NextRequest logins because they enforce Terms/Conditions beyond those required by the CPRA (see ex. Gov Code 6253.3). Other agencies like DPW already appear to do no-login, fully public, publication on NextRequest.
- Please know that Requestors may submit an email Public Records Request (PRR) to the Department of Technology and the Department of Technology can reply in email if that is preferred. You do not need to use NextRequest to receive documents if you do not want to use NextRequest. We can provide in email. Our practice is to use NextRequest because it has the history of the communication. We can provide records either via NextRequest or by email. We can also make the responsive records public in NextRequest if the requestor informs of this need.
* DT also failed to respond on Oct 15 or in the case record to the central allegation (legal argument) in this complaint, which is a violation of the CPRA, Gov Code 6270.5, which requires listing all enterprise systems. I believe, under SOTF rules, I win by default if DT fails to prove its case, and I have heard no argument at all.
- After receiving your complaint to the SOTF on September 3, 2019, DT wasted no time in searching for your emailed records request. It was found on September 4 and was completed on September 5, 2019 with the requested PDF record set.
* DT employee appeared to state on Oct 15 that my Aug 28 IDR email did not state it was an Immediate Disclosure Request in the subject. Please recheck your records. I have verified that both the subject and body of my email certainly say Immediate Disclosure Request. The Subject was "RE: California Public Records Act Request: SB 272 Enterprise Systems - Immediate Disclosure Request." The body says "This is an IMMEDIATE DISCLOSURE REQUEST under the Sunshine Ordinance,..." Does DT agree that my Aug 28 request did correctly state that it was an IDR?
- DT received your complaint on September 3. We searched for the record request which was found on September 4 and DT responded on September 5. The subject line of the email request does state it was an Immediate Disclosure Request. Immediate Disclosure Request are responded to within 24 hours. In this case because the Subject Line of the email contained “RE:” our automated system did not recognize the request as a service request and did not create a ticket. There are process reasons why the automated system does not create a ticket for RE: email subject lines. As soon as we learned there was a records request we immediately searched for the email and responded as quickly as possible.
* DT employee also appeared to state on Oct 15 that my email was not properly routed to your records queue because it had a subject with "RE: " (aka an email reply). However your dept previously statedon Sept. 6 "We had difficulty finding your email because it contained special characters that were picked up by our email filters as potential malware and it was not delivered to the service desk email account." Which is the correct explanation? Why was I publicly given a reason about 'special characters' and 'potential malware'?
- Both explanations are correct. When DT learned that the request had been sent to the Service Desk contact email account, this email box was searched. The records request was not in the mailbox and the first explanation for such a condition is that the automated malware detection software blocked the email from the mailbox due to special characters or malware in the email. DT searched the blocked email archives to find the request. When DT could not find the email in the blocked emails, DT looked at the integration between the Service Desk email account and the automated ServiceNow ticketing system. Emails sent with “Re:” do not auto-generate a service desk ticket to avoid duplicates. The records request had an “Re” in the title and the system rejected the email.
* On August 28, my email stated two requests, an IDR and a non-IDR. I do not believe DT has ever responded to the non-IDR request. Do you agree? I don't see a statement that there are no responsive records, that there are responsive records but they were withheld (with reasons), or any released records. I believe such a response was required under SFAC 67.21, and was due long ago. DT did not comment about this at the Oct 15 hearing.
- DT apologizes for the oversight because the Immediate Request was the focus of our response and DT created and specially formatted the PDF for the response. Thank you for bringing this to our attention and we responded immediately.
************************************************************************
<em>Questions about your request?</em> Reply to this email or sign in to contact staff at City and County of San Francisco.<br></br><em>Technical support:</em> See our <a href='https://www.nextrequest.com/support'>help page</a>
From: twitter.com/journo_anon Public Records Requester
FILE 19095
** Note that all of your responses (including disclosed records) may be automatically and instantly available to the public on the MuckRock.com service used to issue this request (though I am not a MuckRock representative). **
Thanks for the newly disclosed records - please reply with them on this thread.
--Anonymous
From: twitter.com/journo_anon Public Records Requester
RE: NEW 67.21(d) petition
Supervisor of Records,
By this 67.21(d) petition, I am appealing against both the City Atty and the Dept of Tech.
I understand you lack jurisdiction over CPRA Gov Code 6270.5, so that portion of these requests will be taken up at the SOTF only.
The portion to appeal to you is as follows.
PART 1: On August 21st I requested from City Atty:
"2. regular disclosure timeline: internal memos/directives/orders/emails/changelogs of your 2018 and 2019 updates to the catalog, or any other writings evidencing your agency's compliance with Gov Code 6270.5(f): "The local agency shall complete and post the catalog required by this section by July 1, 2016, and **thereafter shall update the catalog annually**." (emphasis mine)"
On Sept 3rd the City Atty withheld all responsive documents:
"Finally, we decline to produce documents responsive to the second part of your request as they are exempt from disclosure under the attorney-client privilege (Cal. Gov’t Code § 6276.04; Cal. Evid. Code § 954) and work product privilege. (Cal. Gov’t Code § 6276.04; Cal. Code of Civil Pro. § 2018.030)."
They repeated the total withholding on Oct. 21 after I followed up. I also explained that the privileges they sought to use could not protect work that is neither confidential legal advice to a client, nor work product *of an attorney* pertaining to the attorney's interpretations and impressions of the law (as opposed to mere statement of facts, which would not be protected by work product privilege). I also do not believe there is a client here at all, since this is the city attorney's own catalog of records.
After an SOTF hearing on Oct 22, on Oct 28, City Atty provided some emails, and Excel and PDF documents, and continued to withhold other documents per the above privileges. Those newly provided documents do *not* appear to be written by attorneys and thus their earlier claimed privileges were inappropriate.
Due to their now-admitted failure to provide all documents initially, I would like you to determine in writing whether every remaining document withheld properly meets the legal exemption of the A-C or W-P privileges.
PART 2: On Aug 28 I requested from DT:
"2. regular disclosure timeline: internal memos/directives/orders/emails/changelogs of your 2018 and 2019 updates to the enterprise system catalog, or any other writings evidencing your agency's compliance with Gov Code 6270.5(f): "The local agency shall complete and post the catalog required by this section by July 1, 2016, and **thereafter shall update the catalog annually**." (emphasis mine)"
DT failed to initially respond to this request at all.
On Oct 23, after an Oct 15 SOTF hearing, DT responded:
"The Department of Technology has searched for responsive records and we do not have any records that are responsive to the request. The inventory of enterprise systems was created in July 1, 2016 and the Department has not implemented any new enterprise systems which would require updating the City listing. https://data.sfgov.org/City-Management-and-Ethics/Inventory-of-citywide-enterprise-systems-of-record/ebux-gcnq ."
I would like you to determine in writing whether DT properly has no responsive records. Note that they claim they have no new enterprise systems, but my request asks not only for the updates themselves (which may indeed be nil), but also the "internal memos/directives/orders/emails" discussing them, which may still exist (and would likely prove out that there are no updates to be made).
Sincerely,
Anonymous
From: San Francisco City Attorney
Dear Requester,
We have taken another look at this request and have searched again and have located the attached documents. We missed these documents inadvertently and apologize for not locating them earlier. We will continue to withhold our other documents responsive to your request, under the attorney-client privilege and work-product privilege as stated previously.
Sincerely,
[cid:image002.jpg@01D58E39.184CBCE0]Elizabeth A. Coolbrith
Paralegal
Office of City Attorney Dennis Herrera
(415) 554-4685 Direct
www.sfcityattorney.org
Find us on: Facebook<https://www.facebook.com/sfcityattorney/> Twitter<https://twitter.com/SFCityAttorney> Instagram<https://www.instagram.com/sfcityattorney/>
From: San Francisco City Attorney
To Whom It May Concern –
I write to acknowledge that we are looking into this petition and will have a response soon. Thanks.
Bradley Russi
Deputy City Attorney
Office of City Attorney Dennis Herrera
(415) 554-4645 Direct
City Hall, Room 234
1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Pl., San Francisco, CA 94102
www.sfcityattorney.org
Attorney-Client Communication - Do Not Disclose
Confidential Attorney Work Product - Do Not Disclose
This email may contain privileged or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, please reply to this email to inform me of your receipt and then destroy all copies.
-
~WRD000
From: San Francisco City Attorney
Please see the attached response to your petition.
Bradley Russi
Deputy City Attorney
Office of City Attorney Dennis Herrera
City Hall, Room 234
1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Pl., San Francisco, CA 94102
www.sfcityattorney.org
-
~WRD000
From: San Francisco City Attorney
Good Afternoon:
Dennis Herrera, Elizabeth Coolbrith and the Office of the City Attorney have been named as Respondents in the attached complaint filed with the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force. Please respond to the following complaint/request within five business days.
The Respondent is required to submit a written response to the allegations including any and all supporting documents, recordings, electronic media, etc., to the Task Force within five (5) business days of receipt of this notice. This is your opportunity to provide a full explanation to allow the Task Force to be fully informed in considering your response prior its meeting.
Please include the following information in your response if applicable:
1. List all relevant records with descriptions that have been provided pursuant to the Complainant request.
2. Date the relevant records were provided to the Complainant.
3. Description of the method used, along with any relevant search terms used, to search for the relevant records.
4. Statement/declaration that all relevant documents have been provided, does not exist, or has been excluded.
5. Copy of the original request for records (if applicable).
Please refer to the File Number when submitting any new information and/or supporting documents pertaining to this complaint.
The Complainant alleges:
Complaint Attached.
Cheryl Leger
Assistant Clerk, Board of Supervisors
Tel: 415-554-7724
<http://www.sfbos.org/index.aspx?page=104> Click here<http://www.sfbos.org/index.aspx?page=104> to complete a Board of Supervisors Customer Service Satisfaction form.
The Legislative Research Center<http://www.sfbos.org/index.aspx?page=9681> provides 24-hour access to Board of Supervisors legislation, and archived matters since August 1998.
Disclosures: Personal information that is provided in communications to the Board of Supervisors is subject to disclosure under the California Public Records Act and the San Francisco Sunshine Ordinance. Personal information provided will not be redacted. Members of the public are not required to provide personal identifying information when they communicate with the Board of Supervisors and its committees. All written or oral communications that members of the public submit to the Clerk's Office regarding pending legislation or hearings will be made available to all members of the public for inspection and copying. The Clerk's Office does not redact any information from these submissions. This means that personal information-including names, phone numbers, addresses and similar information that a member of the public elects to submit to the Board and its committees-may appear on the Board of Supervisors website or in other public documents that members of the public may inspect or copy.
-
image001
From: San Francisco City Attorney
Good Afternoon:
Notice is hereby given that the Compliance and Amendments Committee of the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force shall hold hearings on complaints listed below to determine if the Task Force has jurisdiction pursuant to Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Section 67.21(e). A hearing to review the merits of the complaint will be scheduled on a future date.
The Complainant and Respondent are NOT REQUIRED to attend the January 28, 2020, Committee meeting but may attend to provide testimony related to the above listed determinations only.
Date: January 28, 2020
Location: City Hall, Room 408
Time: 4:30 p.m.
Complaints:
File No. 19091: Complaint filed by Anonymous against Mayor London Breed, the Office of the Mayor, Hank Heckel, Sean Elsbernd, Andres Power, Andrea Bruss, Marjon Philhour, Jeff Cretan, Sophia Kittler for allegedly violating Administrative Code, (Sunshine Ordinance) Sections 67.21, 67.26, 67.27 and 67.29-7, by failing to respond to a request for public records in a timely and/or complete manner.
File No. 19094: Complaint filed by Anonymous against Linda Gerull and the Department of Technology for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Sections 67.21, 67.25, 67.26 and 67.27 by failing to respond to a public records request in a timely and/or complete manner.
File No. 19097: Complaint filed by Anonymous against Public Works for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Sections 67.21, 67.26 and 67.27, by failing to respond to a public records request in a timely and/or complete manner.
File No. 19109: Complaint filed by Stephen Malloy against Dept. of Public Health for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Sections 67.24, 67.25, 67.26 and 67.27 by failing to respond to a public records request in a timely and/or complete manner.
File No. 19110: Complaint filed by Stephen Malloy against the Fire Department for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Sections 67.24, 67.25, 67.26 and 67.27 by failing to respond to a public records request in a timely and/or complete manner.
File No. 19117: Complaint filed by Conrad Wu against the Public Utilities Commission for allegedly violating Administrative Code, (Sunshine Ordinance) Sections 67.25 by failing to respond to a public records request in a timely and/or complete manner.
File No. 19118: Complaint filed by Paul Ondik against the Police Department for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Sections 67.21(b), by failing to respond to a records request in a timely and/or complete manner.
File No. 19119: Complaint filed by Anonymous against the Department of Technology for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Sections 67.21(b), 67.26 and 67.27 by failing to respond to a public records request in a timely and/or complete manner.
File No. 19120: Complaint filed by Anonymous against the Office of the City Attorney for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Sections 67.21(b)(c), 67.26, 67.27, by failing to respond to a request for public records in a timely and/or complete manner; failing to justify withholding of records and failing to provide assistance.
File No. 19121: Complaint filed by Anonymous against the Police Commission for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Sections 67.21(b)(k), 67.26 and 67.27, by failing to respond to a public records request in a timely and/or complete manner; withholding more than the minimum and failing to justify withholding.
File No. 19122: Complaint filed by Anonymous against City Librarian Michael Lambert and the Public Library for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Section 67.25, by failing to respond to an Immediate Disclosure Request in a timely and/or complete manner.
File No. 19123: Complaint filed by Paul Kniha against the San Francisco Municipal Executive Association for allegedly violating Administrative Code, (Sunshine Ordinance), Section 67.21, by failing to respond to a public records request in a timely and/or complete manner.
File No. 19125: Complaint filed by Anonymous against the Controller's Office for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Sections 67.21(b)(c)(k), 67.26, 67.27, by failing to respond to a request for records in a timely and/or complete manner, failing to assist, withheld more than the minimally exempt portion of a public record, failing to justify withholdings with clear reference to exemption statute or case law and failing to provide an exact copy of records.
File No. 19126: Complaint filed by Ann Treboux against the San Francisco Arts Commission for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Section 67.25, by failing to respond to an Immediate Disclosure Request in a timely and/or complete manner.
File No. 19128: Complaint filed by Anonymous against Chief William Scott, Sgt. Brian Rodriguez, Michael Andraychak and the Police Department for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Sections 67.21, 67.25, 67.26, 67.27 and 67.29-7(a), by failing to respond to an Immediate Disclosure Request in a timely and/or complete manner.
File No. 19130: Complaint filed by Stephen Malloy against Chesa Boudin and the District Attorney's Office for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Section 67.21, by failing to respond to a public records request in a timely and/or complete manner.
File No. 19131: Complaint filed by Anonymous against Jose Cisneros, Theresa Buckley and the Treasurer's Office for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Sections 67.21, 67.24, 67.26, 67.27, by failing to respond to a request for records in a timely and/or complete manner, failing to assist, withheld more than the minimally exempt portion of a public record.
File No. 19132: Complaint filed by Anonymous against Mary Ellen Carroll and the Department of Emergency Management for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Sections 67.21 and 67.25, by failing to respond to an Immediate Disclosure Request in a timely and/or complete manner.
File No. 19133: Complaint filed by Anonymous against Tom Maguire and the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Sections 67.21 and 67.25, by failing to respond to an Immediate Disclosure Request in a timely and/or complete manner.
File No. 19134: Complaint filed by Anonymous against Rob Reiter and City Hall Building Management for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Sections 67.21 and 67.25 by failing to respond to an Immediate Disclosure Request in a timely and/or complete manner.
File No. 19135: Complaint filed by Anonymous against Vicki Hennessy and the Sheriff's Department for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Sections 67.21 and 67.25 by failing to respond to an Immediate Disclosure Request in a timely and/or complete manner.
File No. 19136: Complaint filed by Anonymous against Naomi Kelly and the Office of the City Administrator for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Sections 67.21 and 67.25 by failing to respond to an Immediate Disclosure Request in a timely and/or complete manner.
File No. 19137: Complaint filed by Anonymous against Thomas P. Campbell and the Fine Arts Museum for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Sections 67.21, 67.25 and 67.34 by failing to respond to an Immediate Disclosure Request in a timely and/or complete manner.
File No. 19138: Complaint filed by Stephen Malloy against the University of California, Regents of the University of California, for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Sections 67.21, by failing to respond to a public records request in a timely and/or complete manner.
File No. 19139: Complaint filed by Anonymous against Jeanne Buick, Henry Voong and the Department of Human Resources for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Sections 67.24, 67.26 and 67.27(a), by withholding public records.
File No. 19140: Complaint filed by Stephen Malloy against the Department of Human Resources for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Sections 67.21and 67.25, by failing to respond to a request for public records in a timely and/or complete manner.
File No. 19141: Complaint filed by Anonymous against Chief William Scott and the Police Department for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Sections 67.21 and 67.25, by failing to respond to an Immediate Disclosure Request in a timely and/or complete manner.
File No. 19143: Complaint filed by Anonymous against Sheriff Vicki Hennessy, James Wilson and the Sheriff's Department for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Sections 67.24, 67.25 and 67.27, by failing to respond to an Immediate Disclosure Request in a timely and/or complete manner.
File No. 19144: Complaint filed by Anonymous against the Department of Police Accountability for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Sections, 67.21, 67.24, 67.26 and 67.27, by failing to respond to a public records request in a timely and/or complete manner.
File No. 19145: Complaint filed by Anonymous against the Police Commission for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Sections 67.5 and 67.21, by failing to respond to a public records request in a timely and/or complete manner.
File No. 19146: Complaint filed by Anonymous against City Librarian Michael Lambert and the Public Library for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Section 67.21, by failing to request for public records in a timely and/or complete manner.
The agenda and packet material for the meeting is available online at the following link:
Cheryl Leger
Assistant Clerk, Board of Supervisors
Tel: 415-554-7724
<http://www.sfbos.org/index.aspx?page=104> Click here<http://www.sfbos.org/index.aspx?page=104> to complete a Board of Supervisors Customer Service Satisfaction form.
The Legislative Research Center<http://www.sfbos.org/index.aspx?page=9681> provides 24-hour access to Board of Supervisors legislation, and archived matters since August 1998.
Disclosures: Personal information that is provided in communications to the Board of Supervisors is subject to disclosure under the California Public Records Act and the San Francisco Sunshine Ordinance. Personal information provided will not be redacted. Members of the public are not required to provide personal identifying information when they communicate with the Board of Supervisors and its committees. All written or oral communications that members of the public submit to the Clerk's Office regarding pending legislation or hearings will be made available to all members of the public for inspection and copying. The Clerk's Office does not redact any information from these submissions. This means that personal information-including names, phone numbers, addresses and similar information that a member of the public elects to submit to the Board and its committees-may appear on the Board of Supervisors website or in other public documents that members of the public may inspect or copy.
-
image001_iLCFbg4
From: San Francisco City Attorney
Good Afternoon:
Notice is hereby given that the Compliance and Amendments Committee of the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force shall hold hearings on complaints listed below to determine if the Task Force has jurisdiction pursuant to Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Section 67.21(e). A hearing to review the merits of the complaint will be scheduled on a future date.
The Complainant and Respondent are NOT REQUIRED to attend the January 28, 2020, Committee meeting but may attend to provide testimony related to the above listed determinations only.
Date: January 28, 2020
Location: City Hall, Room 408
Time: 4:30 p.m.
Complaints:
File No. 19091: Complaint filed by Anonymous against Mayor London Breed, the Office of the Mayor, Hank Heckel, Sean Elsbernd, Andres Power, Andrea Bruss, Marjon Philhour, Jeff Cretan, Sophia Kittler for allegedly violating Administrative Code, (Sunshine Ordinance) Sections 67.21, 67.26, 67.27 and 67.29-7, by failing to respond to a request for public records in a timely and/or complete manner.
File No. 19094: Complaint filed by Anonymous against Linda Gerull and the Department of Technology for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Sections 67.21, 67.25, 67.26 and 67.27 by failing to respond to a public records request in a timely and/or complete manner.
File No. 19097: Complaint filed by Anonymous against Public Works for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Sections 67.21, 67.26 and 67.27, by failing to respond to a public records request in a timely and/or complete manner.
File No. 19109: Complaint filed by Stephen Malloy against Dept. of Public Health for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Sections 67.24, 67.25, 67.26 and 67.27 by failing to respond to a public records request in a timely and/or complete manner.
File No. 19110: Complaint filed by Stephen Malloy against the Fire Department for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Sections 67.24, 67.25, 67.26 and 67.27 by failing to respond to a public records request in a timely and/or complete manner.
File No. 19117: Complaint filed by Conrad Wu against the Public Utilities Commission for allegedly violating Administrative Code, (Sunshine Ordinance) Sections 67.25 by failing to respond to a public records request in a timely and/or complete manner.
File No. 19118: Complaint filed by Paul Ondik against the Police Department for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Sections 67.21(b), by failing to respond to a records request in a timely and/or complete manner.
File No. 19119: Complaint filed by Anonymous against the Department of Technology for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Sections 67.21(b), 67.26 and 67.27 by failing to respond to a public records request in a timely and/or complete manner.
File No. 19120: Complaint filed by Anonymous against the Office of the City Attorney for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Sections 67.21(b)(c), 67.26, 67.27, by failing to respond to a request for public records in a timely and/or complete manner; failing to justify withholding of records and failing to provide assistance.
File No. 19121: Complaint filed by Anonymous against the Police Commission for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Sections 67.21(b)(k), 67.26 and 67.27, by failing to respond to a public records request in a timely and/or complete manner; withholding more than the minimum and failing to justify withholding.
File No. 19122: Complaint filed by Anonymous against City Librarian Michael Lambert and the Public Library for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Section 67.25, by failing to respond to an Immediate Disclosure Request in a timely and/or complete manner.
File No. 19123: Complaint filed by Paul Kniha against the San Francisco Municipal Executive Association for allegedly violating Administrative Code, (Sunshine Ordinance), Section 67.21, by failing to respond to a public records request in a timely and/or complete manner.
File No. 19125: Complaint filed by Anonymous against the Controller's Office for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Sections 67.21(b)(c)(k), 67.26, 67.27, by failing to respond to a request for records in a timely and/or complete manner, failing to assist, withheld more than the minimally exempt portion of a public record, failing to justify withholdings with clear reference to exemption statute or case law and failing to provide an exact copy of records.
File No. 19126: Complaint filed by Ann Treboux against the San Francisco Arts Commission for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Section 67.25, by failing to respond to an Immediate Disclosure Request in a timely and/or complete manner.
File No. 19128: Complaint filed by Anonymous against Chief William Scott, Sgt. Brian Rodriguez, Michael Andraychak and the Police Department for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Sections 67.21, 67.25, 67.26, 67.27 and 67.29-7(a), by failing to respond to an Immediate Disclosure Request in a timely and/or complete manner.
File No. 19130: Complaint filed by Stephen Malloy against Chesa Boudin and the District Attorney's Office for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Section 67.21, by failing to respond to a public records request in a timely and/or complete manner.
File No. 19131: Complaint filed by Anonymous against Jose Cisneros, Theresa Buckley and the Treasurer's Office for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Sections 67.21, 67.24, 67.26, 67.27, by failing to respond to a request for records in a timely and/or complete manner, failing to assist, withheld more than the minimally exempt portion of a public record.
File No. 19132: Complaint filed by Anonymous against Mary Ellen Carroll and the Department of Emergency Management for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Sections 67.21 and 67.25, by failing to respond to an Immediate Disclosure Request in a timely and/or complete manner.
File No. 19133: Complaint filed by Anonymous against Tom Maguire and the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Sections 67.21 and 67.25, by failing to respond to an Immediate Disclosure Request in a timely and/or complete manner.
File No. 19134: Complaint filed by Anonymous against Rob Reiter and City Hall Building Management for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Sections 67.21 and 67.25 by failing to respond to an Immediate Disclosure Request in a timely and/or complete manner.
File No. 19135: Complaint filed by Anonymous against Vicki Hennessy and the Sheriff's Department for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Sections 67.21 and 67.25 by failing to respond to an Immediate Disclosure Request in a timely and/or complete manner.
File No. 19136: Complaint filed by Anonymous against Naomi Kelly and the Office of the City Administrator for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Sections 67.21 and 67.25 by failing to respond to an Immediate Disclosure Request in a timely and/or complete manner.
File No. 19137: Complaint filed by Anonymous against Thomas P. Campbell and the Fine Arts Museum for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Sections 67.21, 67.25 and 67.34 by failing to respond to an Immediate Disclosure Request in a timely and/or complete manner.
File No. 19138: Complaint filed by Stephen Malloy against the University of California, Regents of the University of California, for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Sections 67.21, by failing to respond to a public records request in a timely and/or complete manner.
File No. 19139: Complaint filed by Anonymous against Jeanne Buick, Henry Voong and the Department of Human Resources for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Sections 67.24, 67.26 and 67.27(a), by withholding public records.
File No. 19140: Complaint filed by Stephen Malloy against the Department of Human Resources for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Sections 67.21and 67.25, by failing to respond to a request for public records in a timely and/or complete manner.
File No. 19141: Complaint filed by Anonymous against Chief William Scott and the Police Department for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Sections 67.21 and 67.25, by failing to respond to an Immediate Disclosure Request in a timely and/or complete manner.
File No. 19143: Complaint filed by Anonymous against Sheriff Vicki Hennessy, James Wilson and the Sheriff's Department for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Sections 67.24, 67.25 and 67.27, by failing to respond to an Immediate Disclosure Request in a timely and/or complete manner.
File No. 19144: Complaint filed by Anonymous against the Department of Police Accountability for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Sections, 67.21, 67.24, 67.26 and 67.27, by failing to respond to a public records request in a timely and/or complete manner.
File No. 19145: Complaint filed by Anonymous against the Police Commission for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Sections 67.5 and 67.21, by failing to respond to a public records request in a timely and/or complete manner.
File No. 19146: Complaint filed by Anonymous against City Librarian Michael Lambert and the Public Library for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Section 67.21, by failing to request for public records in a timely and/or complete manner.
The agenda and packet material for the meeting is available online at the following link:
Cheryl Leger
Assistant Clerk, Board of Supervisors
Tel: 415-554-7724
<http://www.sfbos.org/index.aspx?page=104> Click here<http://www.sfbos.org/index.aspx?page=104> to complete a Board of Supervisors Customer Service Satisfaction form.
The Legislative Research Center<http://www.sfbos.org/index.aspx?page=9681> provides 24-hour access to Board of Supervisors legislation, and archived matters since August 1998.
Disclosures: Personal information that is provided in communications to the Board of Supervisors is subject to disclosure under the California Public Records Act and the San Francisco Sunshine Ordinance. Personal information provided will not be redacted. Members of the public are not required to provide personal identifying information when they communicate with the Board of Supervisors and its committees. All written or oral communications that members of the public submit to the Clerk's Office regarding pending legislation or hearings will be made available to all members of the public for inspection and copying. The Clerk's Office does not redact any information from these submissions. This means that personal information-including names, phone numbers, addresses and similar information that a member of the public elects to submit to the Board and its committees-may appear on the Board of Supervisors website or in other public documents that members of the public may inspect or copy.
-
image001_NUYZpfO
From: San Francisco City Attorney
Dear Anonymous: Please see the City Attorney's response to 20004 just received.
Cheryl Leger
Files
pages
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
09/17/2019
Re: SOTF - Complaint Filed with the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force - File No. 19094
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
There are too many files to display on the request page. See all files .