Sept 12, 2019 Heckel Calendar - Immediate Disclosure Request

RE: Sept 12, 2019 Heckel Calendar - Immediate Disclosure Request

Mayor's Office,

Pursuant to the CPRA/Sunshine Ordinance, I hereby make the following 3 Immediate Disclosure Requests. Exact copies are requested pursuant to GC 6253(b). Rolling responses are requested if you are not able to produce the records in 1 business day (SFAC 67.25).

1. the entire record of the meeting on Hank Heckel's Sept 12, 2019 calendar entitled "Custodian of Records Quarterly meeting" (the "meeting")
2. the meeting in the easily-generated ICS format (if you provided this in #1 you do not need to provide it again)
3. all rows in the ICS record of the meeting including but not limited to PRIORITY, CREATED, CLASS, DTEND, DTSTAMP, DTSTART, LAST-MODIFIED, X-MICROSOFT-CDO-BUSYSTATUS, X-MICROSOFT-CDO-IMPORTANCE, X-MICROSOFT-CDO-INTENDEDSTATUS, TZID, CATEGORIES, STATUS, ATTENDEE, ORGANIZER, RRULE, PARTSTAT, LOCATION (if you provided these in #2 you do not need to provide it again)

Each of the three requests must receive a response, justifications for withholding entire records, and footnotes or clear references to justifications for withholding by deletion or masking parts of records (i.e. redaction).

NOTE: Not all entries in #3 are "metadata," and they are not "headers" either! Some are not records "thereby created" by a computer at the behest of a human, but instead written directly by a human like the importance, categories, participation status (accepted/declined/etc.) and such. Also, a pending SOTF hearing is not a lawful exemption justification so please find some exemptions valid under SFAC 67.27 for each and every record or part withheld/redacted.

Provide only those records without fees.

NOTE: Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. The email address sending this request is a publicly- viewable mailbox. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.

Sincerely,
Anonymous

I am cross-checking different agencies response for that record and you were listed as an attendee to that meeting by Ms. Celaya. But if you don't have the record, that's that.

Regardless, let's try a different one:

Pursuant to the CPRA/Sunshine Ordinance, I hereby make the following 3 Immediate Disclosure Requests. Exact copies are requested pursuant to GC 6253(b). Rolling responses are requested if you are not able to produce the records in 1 business day (SFAC 67.25).

1. the entire record of the meeting on Hank Heckel's 2019-05-14 calendar entitled "Custodians of Records Meeting " (the "meeting")
2. the meeting in the easily-generated ICS format (if you provided this in #1 you do not need to provide it again)
3. all rows in the ICS record of the meeting including but not limited to PRIORITY, CREATED, CLASS, DTEND, DTSTAMP, DTSTART, LAST-MODIFIED, X-MICROSOFT-CDO-BUSYSTATUS, X-MICROSOFT-CDO-IMPORTANCE, X-MICROSOFT-CDO-INTENDEDSTATUS, TZID, CATEGORIES, STATUS, ATTENDEE, ORGANIZER, RRULE, PARTSTAT, LOCATION (if you provided these in #2 you do not need to provide it again)

Each of the three requests must receive a response, justifications for withholding entire records, and footnotes or clear references to justifications for withholding by deletion or masking parts of records (i.e. redaction).

NOTE: Not all entries in #3 are "metadata," and they are not "headers" either! Some are not records "thereby created" by a computer at the behest of a human, but instead written directly by a human like the importance, categories, participation status (accepted/declined/etc.) and such. Also, a pending SOTF hearing is not a lawful exemption justification so please find some exemptions valid under SFAC 67.27 for each and every record or part withheld/redacted.

Provide only those records without fees.

NOTE: Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. The email address sending this request is a publicly- viewable mailbox. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.

Sincerely,
Anonymous

This is an immediate disclosure request for:
- the LAST-MODIFIED timestamp of the meeting on Hank Heckel's 2019-05-14 calendar entitled "Custodians of Records Meeting " (the "meeting")

I suspect you will again try to use 6254.19, which cannot apply to these timestamps, as they are not info sec records. Note that I am asking for information, not a particular format, so 6253.9(f) is inapplicable. Use whatever format you want as long as you disclose the information.

If you cite inapplicable justifications, we will appeal a violation of 67.27 regardless of what happens to metadata generally.

The City will not be able to escape disclosure of information that is not explicitly exempt.

First, we do not concede that we have to provide a specific method for examining your records. Regardless, as you can discuss with your IT staff, the underlying information is most likely stored in an Outlook PST file on your computer. This PST file is retained by your agency and you use it everyday when you use Outlook, it is a record "thereby created" when you communicate, and it concerns the public business; and therefore is a public record as I argued at the most recent SOTF. Every part of that PST file is a public record except the part that is purely personal. Every non-personal part is further a disclosable public record, except that which is explicitly exempt.

1. You could of course give me the entire PST and redact 99% of it. That seems like a waste of time for everyone. Though, the City has indeed turned over PST files publicly in the past (search NextRequest). Without conceding anything, even if you argued the PST, as the original electronic format, does not need to be turned over pursuant to GC 6253.9(f), note that that clause applies *solely* to the original format (not every format, as you apparently previously tried to argue), and does not apply to any SFAC 67.21(l) easily-generated formats, since the latter is a greater right of access created by the Sunshine Ordinance, and also note 6253.9(f) never allows you to exempt non-exempt *information* itself even under the CPRA, just the format itself. An easily-generated format of course wouldn't threaten the original record since it isn't in the original format and you will have to find some other exemptions to my requested info, like 6254.19. You can't exempt the LAST-MODIFIED timestamp just because it is next to say an unique ID, just like you can't exempt say a govt phone number next to an SSN.

Barring PSTs, you can then provide the information in any format you wish as long as you withhold no non-exempt information about the LAST-MODIFIED. Other City departments have provided their copy of this record (which is a different version though), so I will verify the form of what you disclose. Here are some non-exhaustive examples that do not require programming a computer:

2. You could export the calendar item as an ICS file, which is easily-generated as previously found by SOTF. Your IT staff will have to tell you how to as I don't know your Outlook version. This is still your easiest and least labor option.

3. You could also successfully respond to the instant request by exporting the item to ICS, deleting as non-responsive all table rows except the one that looks like "LAST-MODIFIED:yyyymmddThhmmssZ" and giving me the remainder (i.e. that one line) of the ICS file. Deletion is in fact a permitted operation under SFAC 67.26; you do not have to figure out how to add black redaction bars.

4. If you are for some reason worried about the one-row ICS file still somehow having residual infosec material after you delete all the other table rows, you could print that resulting file with one line to a PDF.

Note that I am not conceding that degrading the record in these ways meets your obligations to provide exact copies when requested and practical, or to provide formats whenever requested and easily-generated (but in this request I did not ask for any given format or exact copies, so all that matters is you withhold no non-exempt info).

You could also avoid this by just asking DT, who will likely tell you there is nothing to be concerned about with ICS files once you remove a few fields.

NOTE: Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. The email address sending this request is a publicly- viewable mailbox. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. Provide only those records without fees. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.

Sincerely,
Anonymous