April 28-May 4, 2019 Calendar - Immediate Disclosure Request

Anonymous Person filed this request with the Office of the Mayor of San Francisco, CA.
Tracking #

19047

Status
Completed

Communications

From: Anonymous Person

This is an Immediate Disclosure Request under the San Francisco Sunshine Ordinance, made before close of business May 8, 2019.

** 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). **

We request under the San Francisco Sunshine Ordinance (Ordinance) and the California Public Records Act (CPRA):

"1. an electronic copy, in the original electronic format, with all calendar item headers, email addresses, metadata, timestamps, attachments, appendices, exhibits, and inline images, except those explicitly exempted by the Ordinance, of the Mayor's calendar, with all items, from April 28 to May 4, 2019 (inclusive)."

We remind you of your obligations to provide electronic records in the original format you hold them in. Therefore, calendars exported in the .ics, iCalendar, or vCard formats with all non-exempt headers, metadata, attachments, etc. are best. Such formats are easily exportable from Google Calendar, Microsoft Outlook, Microsoft Exchange or other common calendaring/email systems.

However, if you choose to convert calendar items, for example, to PDF or printed format, to easily redact them, you must ensure that you have preserved the full content of the original calendar item record (as specified in request "1"), which contains many detailed headers beyond the ones generally printed out. If you instead provide PDFs or printed items with only a few of the headers or lacking attachments/images, and therefore withhold the other headers/attachments without justification, you may be in violation of SF Admin Code 67.26, 67.27, Govt Code 6253(a), 6253.9, and/or 6255, and we may challenge your decision.

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: Anonymous Person

We remind you of your obligation under City of San Jose v Superior Court (2017) to search personal accounts/devices for calendar items regarding the public's business, as appropriate.

** 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). **

From: Office of the Mayor

Received. We are processing our response.

Thank you,

Hank Heckel
Compliance Officer
Office of Mayor London N. Breed
City and County of San Francisco
(415) 554-4796

From: Office of the Mayor

VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
Requestor: Anonymous

Email: requests@muckrock.com

May 9, 2019

Re: Public Records Request received May 8, 2019

To whom it may concern:

This responds to your Immediate Disclosure Request below.

Response Dated April 24, 2019

Thank you for your inquiry. Please see attached the requested information.

This information has been provided in a PDF format for its ease of transferability and accessibility, consistent with Cal. Gov. Code 6253.9(a)(1). Moreover, pursuant to Cal. Gov. Code 6253.9 (f), an agency is not required to provide an electronic record in an electronic format that would jeopardize or compromise the security or integrity of the original record. The PDF format ensures the security and integrity of the original record.

Please also note that we are responding on behalf of the Mayor's Office only, and not on behalf of other city departments.

If you have any questions about your request or would like to submit another public records request, please feel free to contact us at mayorsunshinerequests@sfgov.org<mailto:mayorsunshinerequests@sfgov.org>.
Best Regards,

Hank Heckel
Compliance Officer
Office of Mayor London N. Breed
City and County of San Francisco

From: Anonymous Person

We do not believe your arguments re: the acceptability of PDF format are valid and intend to contest them at the Sunshine Task Force. First, 6253.9(f) protects the integrity and security of the *original* record, not the copy of the record you provide to the public. Regardless, PDFs which are not digitally signed can be quite easily edited by anyone, no differently than editing say the .ics calendar file you could have provided to us. Second, 6253.9(a)(1) plainly requires provision of the in "any electronic format in which it holds the information" and we asked for the original format. Our understanding of computer systems indicates that format is not PDF.

In the mean time, I will point out that the original electronic format of the Mayor's calendar may contain substantial additional information (such as email addresses, conference call numbers, actual names of attendees instead of group descriptions, the acceptance/rejection of individual attendees to the invite, etc.) than that which was printed out for us. In addition to, and separately from, not being in the original format, by converting to PDF, you may have withheld such portions of the record from us, without pointing out to us that the portions were in fact withheld nor providing statutory justification for exemption (required by CPRA and the Sunshine Ordinance) nor providing the name and title of the official responsible for such withholding. Please provide all such information, if any information was withheld in the PDF you released to us, as compared to the original format.

** 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.

From: Anonymous Person

A new Sunshine Task Force complaint against Office of Mayor is attached.
We will also submit an entry on your webform.

** 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,
Anonymous

From: Anonymous Person

The following Sunshine Task Force complaint against Office of Mayor was filed earlier today:
https://cdn.muckrock.com/outbound_request_attachments/Anonymous_2859385/72902/SF-Mayor-Calendar-SOTF-Appeal-72902.pdf

** 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,
Anonymous

From: Office of the Mayor

Good Morning:

Mayor London Breed, Hank Heckel and the Office of the Mayor 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.

From: Anonymous Person

Attached is a new petition to the Supervisor of Records.

** 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). **

From: Office of the Mayor

To Whom It May Concern:

I write to inform you that we are working on responding to your petition. I hope to have a response to you no later than the end of next week. Thank you for your patience.

[cid:image003.jpg@01D51003.935E8850]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

From: Office of the Mayor

Dear Honorable Members of the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force,

Please see the attached response to the complaint noticed below, and the attached associated files.
Best Regards,

Hank Heckel
Compliance Officer
Office of Mayor London N. Breed
City and County of San Francisco

From: Anonymous Person

RE: SOTF - File No. 19047

Mr. Heckel, Mayor Breed, and Honorable Members of the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force,

I have attached a rebuttal to Mr. Heckel's response. I hope your Task Force will consider my complaint soon.

** 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). **

Sincerely,
Anonymous

From: Anonymous Person

To the Supervisor of Records,

I previously petitioned you regarding my ref #72902, which is SOTF 19047, Anonymous v. Mayor London Breed and Hank Heckel, Office of the Mayor.
The Mayor provided a response to us in the SOTF case at: https://cdn.muckrock.com/foia_files/2019/05/21/5.21.19_Response_to_SOTF_Complaint_File_19047_Re_Request_of_Anonymous.pdf
I have also sent a rebuttal to the SOTF: https://cdn.muckrock.com/outbound_request_attachments/Anonymous_2859385/72902/SF-Mayor-Calendar-Appeal-SOTF-19047-followup.pdf

I hope this additional information may be of use to you, and I look forward to your response.

Sincerely,
Anonymous

From: Office of the Mayor

Thank you for this. We are still working through the issues raised by your petition and appreciate your patience.

[cid:image002.jpg@01D51D21.73207190]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

From: Anonymous Person

Mr. Heckel,

**Note this is a public mailbox, and 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).**

As I have noted in the past, the instant 19047 Task Force case raises similar (but not identical) issues to my case 19044 against the City Attorney's office. I was recently notified the by John Coté that the City Attorney's office will be working with their IT staff to further determine which metadata can be disclosed safely.

As your office I assume is advised by the the City Attorney's office on your metadata disclosure requirements as well, I hope your office and the City Attorney's office work with each other and the city's IT experts to come up with a reasonable set of specific metadata that must be withheld for security (and any other lawful exemption reasons), so the City has a consistent policy on such disclosure. I have sent Mr. Coté a similar email already.

I intend to continue to pursue both Task Force cases to ensure that, even if the respondents in both these cases eventually provide all non-exempt metadata, that the Task Force make a determination that the /prior/ responses of the agencies withholding metadata /in general/ were violations of the Sunshine Ordinance, in order to vindicate the right of the public to receive copies of non-exempt public records metadata when they ask for it.

Furthermore, and independently, I intend to pursue the argument that your office may not withhold (regardless of any metadata issues) calendar information merely because it is not on the Prop G list of minimum items the office must keep a record of.

Sincerely,

Anonymous

From: Office of the Mayor

Good Morning:

You are receiving this notice because you are named as a Complainant or Respondent in one of the following complaints scheduled before the Compliance and Amendments Committee to: 1) hear the merits of the complaint; 2) issue a determination; and/or 3) consider referrals from a Task Force Committee.

Date: July 3, 2019

Location: City Hall, Room 408

Time: 4:30 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. 19052: Complaint filed by Alex Koskinen against the Department of Public Health 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. 19060: Complaint filed by Ashley Rhodes against the Arts Commission for allegedly violating Administrative Code, Section 67.21, by failing to respond to a request for public records in a timely and/or complete manner.

File No. 19025: Complaint filed by Jamie Whitaker against the Homelessness and Supportive Housing 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. 19047: Complaint filed by Anonymous against Mayor London Breed, Hank Heckel and the Office of the Mayor for allegedly violating Administrative Code, (Sunshine Ordinance) Sections 67.25 and 67.29-5, by failing to respond to a request for public records 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, June 26, 2019.

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.

From: Anonymous Person

RE: SOTF File 19047

I am happy to appear telephonically on July 3. I cannot be physically present however. Please let me know conference call, Google Hangouts, Skype, or similar credentials by which I may answer any questions the Task Force may have. I do believe, however, I have laid out all of my arguments in the documents below:

My files to consider and include in the agenda/packet:
1. My complaint: https://cdn.muckrock.com/outbound_request_attachments/Anonymous_2859385/72902/SF-Mayor-Calendar-SOTF-Appeal-72902.pdf
3. My rebuttal to Respondents' response: https://cdn.muckrock.com/outbound_request_attachments/Anonymous_2859385/72902/SF-Mayor-Calendar-Appeal-SOTF-19047-followup.pdf

**Note this is a public mailbox, and 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,
Anonymous

From: Office of the Mayor

Dear Anonymous:

I just received a phone call from Hank Heckel of the Mayor's office who notified me that he will be out of the office on July 3 and therefore unavailable for the Compliance and Amendments Committee hearing on that date. Mr. Heckel also stated that there is no other person most knowledgeable available to attend this hearing from the Mayor's office. This request refers to file no. 19047 (complaint description below). By way of this email, I am also notifying the Chair of that Committee of the Respondent's request. Please acknowledge receipt of this message. Thank you.

File No. 19047: Complaint filed by Anonymous against Mayor London Breed, Hank Heckel and the Office of the Mayor for allegedly violating Administrative Code, (Sunshine Ordinance) Sections 67.25 and 67.29-5, by failing to respond to a request for public records in a timely and/or complete manner.

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: Anonymous Person

Thank you for the notice. I acknowledge receipt and have no objection to the continuance in 19047.

I would appreciate a response to my prior request to appear telephonically at the hearing, when you reschedule it - as I cannot be physically present. Please let me know conference call, Google Hangouts, Skype, or similar credentials by which I may answer any questions the Task Force may have.

**Note this is a public mailbox, and 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,
Anonymous

From: Office of the Mayor

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: July 23, 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. 19044: Complaint filed by Anonymous against Dennis Herrera and the Office of the City Attorney 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. 19047: Complaint filed by Anonymous against Mayor London Breed, Hank Heckel and the Office of the Mayor for allegedly violating Administrative Code, (Sunshine Ordinance) Sections 67.25 and 67.29-5, by failing to respond to a request for public records in a timely and/or complete manner.

File No. 19052: Complaint filed by Alex Koskinen against the Department of Public Health 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. 19060: Complaint filed by Ashley Rhodes against the Arts Commission for allegedly violating Administrative Code, Section 67.21, by failing to respond to a request for public records in a timely and/or complete manner.

File No. 19025: Complaint filed by Jamie Whitaker against the Homelessness and Supportive Housing 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.

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, July 16, 2019.

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.

From: Anonymous Person

I (anonymous in 19047) am happy to appear telephonically on July 23. I cannot be physically present however. Please let me know conference call, Google Hangouts, Skype, or similar credentials by which I may answer any questions the Task Force may have. I do believe, however, I have laid out all of my arguments in the documents below:

My files to consider and include in the agenda/packet:
1. My complaint: https://cdn.muckrock.com/outbound_request_attachments/Anonymous_2859385/72902/SF-Mayor-Calendar-SOTF-Appeal-72902.pdf
3. My rebuttal to Respondents' response: https://cdn.muckrock.com/outbound_request_attachments/Anonymous_2859385/72902/SF-Mayor-Calendar-Appeal-SOTF-19047-followup.pdf

**Note this is a public mailbox, and 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,
Anonymous

From: Office of the Mayor

Dear SOTF Parties and Members:

Please see attached a Notice of Cancellation of the July 3, 2019, hearing of the Compliance And Amendments Committee. If you have questions, please contact me at the number below. Hope everyone has a nice holiday.

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: Anonymous Person

Re: My May 21 supervisor of records petition

Do you have an update on this petition (the Mayor's calendar, SOTF 19047)?

I would remind you of SF Admin Code 67.21(d) "...The supervisor of records shall inform the petitioner, as soon as possible and within 10 days, of its determination whether the record requested, or any part of the record requested, is public. ..."

Please provide a reply as soon as you are able to.

**Note this is a public mailbox, and 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,
Anonymous

From: Office of the Mayor

Unfortunately, we are still working with our IT staff on the issues you have raised and won't be able to respond to your petitions until next week. Thanks for your patience.

[cid:image002.jpg@01D53024.C30D6AD0]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

From: Anonymous Person

Thank you. I would like to remind you that 19047 has two mostly separate parts:
1) the fact that we should receive original electronic formats and headers/metadata of the Mayor's calendar (with the IT aspect as you mentioned),
2) and also that *all* calendar records the Mayor's Office possesses that discuss the public's business are public records, not just merely those that cover the Prop G requirements of what calendar items must minimally be kept by the Mayor.

Withholding of records under #2 was an issue raised by the Mayor's Office in their response to the SOTF: https://cdn.muckrock.com/foia_files/2019/05/21/5.21.19_Response_to_SOTF_Complaint_File_19047_Re_Request_of_Anonymous.pdf

I have argued why #2 are public records in my SOTF rebuttal: https://cdn.muckrock.com/outbound_request_attachments/Anonymous_2859385/72902/SF-Mayor-Calendar-Appeal-SOTF-19047-followup.pdf

Please review those additional issues. (I first informed the Supervisor of Records of these documents on June 4th.)

**Note this is a public mailbox, and 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,
Anonymous

From: Anonymous Person

Supervisor of Records,

Re: My May 21 supervisor of records petition

On July 1, Deputy City Attorney Russi said your office would finish responding to my petition "next week."
SF Admin Code 67.21(d) states "...The supervisor of records shall inform the petitioner, as soon as possible and within 10 days, of its determination whether the record requested, or any part of the record requested, is public. ..."

All deadlines have long expired. Please provide a reply to my petition immediately. (Note I have 2 separate petitions outstanding - May 8 and May 21 - this email address handles the May 21st issue).

**Note this is a public mailbox, and 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,
Anonymous

From: Office of the Mayor

I thought we would be able to get back to you sooner, but unfortunately we are still investigating these issues and have not reached a resolution. We are continuing to look into the questions you have raised and hope to be able to provide a response soon. Thank you for your patience.

[cid:image003.jpg@01D54226.F4AC2310]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

From: Office of the Mayor

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: August 20, 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. 19068: Complaint filed by Sophia De Anda against the Human Services Agency 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. 19061: Complaint filed by John Hooper against the Office of Economic and Workforce Development 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. 19062: Complaint filed by John Hooper against Public Works 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. 19044: Complaint filed by Anonymous against Dennis Herrera and the Office of the City Attorney 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. 19047: Complaint filed by Anonymous against Mayor London Breed, Hank Heckel and the Office of the Mayor for allegedly violating Administrative Code, (Sunshine Ordinance) Sections 67.25 and 67.29-5, by failing to respond to a request for public records 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, August 13, 2019.

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.

From: Office of the Mayor

Dear Anonymous:

I write to you today to confirm your audio appearance at the August 20, 2019, Complaint Committee hearing. This is because you will need to provide your telephone number for a telephone appearance in hearing room 408 at City Hall in San Francisco. I will forward instructions for your appearance before that date.

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: Anonymous Person

Thank you. I would prefer to remain anonymous, and therefore not provide a phone number.
Is it possible to get a call-in code or similar instead?

From:

Re: Files: 19061 and 19062

Hi Cheryl: May I submit written materials ahead of time for SOTF to read? If so, when would you like to receive materials?

May I assume information previously submitted by myself or others is already part of the SOTF record and may be referenced without resubmitting?

Thank you.

John Hooper

From: Anonymous Person

RE: File No. 19047 - Aug 20 complaint committee.

**Note this is a public mailbox, and 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).**

As previously indicated, my files to consider and include in the record are:
1. My complaint: https://cdn.muckrock.com/outbound_request_attachments/Anonymous_2859385/72902/SF-Mayor-Calendar-SOTF-Appeal-72902.pdf
3. My rebuttal to Respondents' response: https://cdn.muckrock.com/outbound_request_attachments/Anonymous_2859385/72902/SF-Mayor-Calendar-Appeal-SOTF-19047-followup.pdf

If I am unable to appear completely anonymously via teleconference, etc. I am happy to have my complaint judged on the written record.

Thanks,
Anonymous

From: Office of the Mayor

Dear SOTF Parties:

The agenda packet for the August 20, 2019, Complaint Committee of the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force, 5:30 pm hearing is available online at the following link:

https://sfgov.org/sunshine/sites/default/files/complaint082019_agenda.pdf

The packet material is linked to each item listed on the agenda mark with an "attachment". Click anywhere on the title of the item to open the link to the pdf of the packet material in question.

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: Office of the Mayor

Dear Anonymous:

By now you should have received the Agenda packet sent to you this morning regarding the upcoming hearing on your complaints. Since your matters will be heard at the end of the hearing, I am asking that you be named Callers No. 1 (72056, File No. 19044) and No. 2 (72902, File No. 19047); items 7 and 8, respectively. You need to call in to 415-554-9632 before the hearing begins to make certain that both of you are on line and can hear the proceeding. You will be able to hear the audio from the room on the phone line. Please note that this is a conference line so both parties will be on the line at the same time. If you have further questions regarding calling in, please let me know. 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: Anonymous Person

Thank you so much!

From: Office of the Mayor

Dear Callers:

Please make certain to call before the start of the meeting which is 5:30. If you could call at 5:15 PM that would be ideal so that you can hear the proceeding and I will know that you are on the telephone line. I will have both of you on mute until your matter is called at which time I will ask if you can hear me. Looking forward to hearing your case.

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: Anonymous Person

I have called (415) 554-9632‬ repeatedly. Your phone picks up but no one is there.
I had just spoken to you about twenty minutes ago. Is something wrong?

From: Anonymous Person

Thank you for considering my case 19047 last night and moving it to the full SOTF.

When this case is agendized for the SOTF, please note:
Your current caption for the 19047 case states an allegation re: 67.25 and 67.29-5, but I actually alleged that Respondent violated all of Admin Code 67.21, 67.26, 67.27 and Govt Code 6253, 6253.9, and 6255 (incorporated via Admin Code 67.21(k)). (67.29-5 appears to be Respondent’s "defense," it is not my allegation. There was no 67.25 timeliness allegation either.)

From: Office of the Mayor

Dear Anonymous:

It is the process of the Sunshine Task Force to have complaints heard at the Committee level first to determine if the records are public, there is jurisdiction and whether or not to forward to the SOTF for review and to make a ruling on the matter. The complaint below seems to be your commentary of what took place during the hearing last night. Can you please confirm if this is true? 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: Anonymous Person

**Note this is a public mailbox, and 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).**

No, this specific issue was not discussed at Aug. 20 meeting. I believe you may be referring to: At last night's meeting, I pointed out that the Supervisor of Records has refused to provide a timely (10-day) opinion in *19044*, where he is already the respondent in the case as the City Attorney. Therefore, during questioning by the Committee, I asked the SOTF to find (in addition to other violations) a timeliness violation in 19044 on that basis.

The complaint here is against the Supervisor of Records' (in)actions in *19047* as violating the timeliness requirement of 67.21(d). Since only the Mayor, and not the Sup. of Records, is the respondent in 19047, I did not make those allegations against the Sup. of Records last night as it does not seem fair to do so without giving notice that they would need to appear for 19047. I know of no way to compel an opinion except filing a new complaint each time the Sup. of Records fails to perform their duties under 67.21(d). If I don't make the specific allegation, I don't know if the SOTF would have the authority to make any orders re: each failure.

I understand the SOTF may want to combine this new complaint with 19047 under its procedures, however I'll point out that the respondents, types of allegations, and the legal question to be resolved would be different (ex. "Are native electronic formats, metadata/headers, and non-Prop G calendars exempt from Sunshine Ordinance?" VS "Can the Sup. of Records fail to provide an opinion within 10 days of a petition?").

If your procedure/bylaws allows you to skip the committee intake process at your discretion, I respectfully request that this complaint be considered for such process. I'm not sure what additional fact-finding can be done in this case.

Sincerely,
Anonymous

======

Complaint against which Department or Commission
Supervisor of Records (aka City Attorney)

Name of individual contacted at Department or Commission
Dennis Herrera (City Attorney), Bradley Russi (Deputy City Attorney)

Alleged Violation
Public Records

Sunshine Ordinance Section:
67.21(d)

Please describe alleged violation:
If the Task Force has any mechanism to take up this complaint as the SOTF en banc, instead of first via a committee, to avoid months of waiting, I would like to take that path. The Supervisor of Records' violation of the Sunshine Ordinance is especially dangerous to San Francisco's public records regime, since it is he who is responsible (among others) for enforcing the public's access to records.

SF Admin Code 67.21(d) states "...The supervisor of records shall inform the petitioner, as soon as possible and within 10 days, of its determination whether the record requested, or any part of the record requested, is public. ..."

There are no extensions or exceptions to this 10 day deadline.

I petitioned the Supervisor of Records on May 15th for a determination re: the records at issue in SOTF 19047, Anonymous vs. Mayor (re: electronic calendar records). The deadline was therefore May 25, no later, for a legal opinion from the Supervisor of Records.

On May 21st, Deputy City Attorney Russi said " I hope to have a response to you no later than the end of next week."
On June 7th, Russi said "We are still working through the issues raised by your petition and appreciate your patience."
On July 1st, Russi said they "...won't be able to respond to your petitions until next week. "
On July 24th, Russi said "We are continuing to look into the questions you have raised and hope to be able to provide a response soon."

This is a clear violation of 67.21(d).

[[ Please note the Supervisor of Records has similarly delayed a response to a petition re: SOTF 19044, but since the respondent in 19044 is the City Attorney himself (who is in fact the Supervisor of Records), that allegation is being handled in 19044 itself. ]]

Name
Anonymous

Email
requests@muckrock.com <mailto:requests@muckrock.com>

If anonymous, please let us know how to contact you. Thank you.
Email requests@muckrock.com <mailto:requests@muckrock.com>

From: Office of the Mayor

Good Afternoon:

Bradley Russi and the City Attorney's Office 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.

From:

To Whom it may concern:

Please see the attached response to your petition to the Supervisor of Records, submitted on May 15, 2019, concerning the Mayor's Office's response to your May 8, 2019 request. Thank you.

From: Anonymous Person

Thank you for your response, Supervisor of Records. We will continue to pursue SOTF 19047 v the Mayor re: the calendar data and SOTF 19089 v your office re: your prior violation of SFAC 67.21(d).

Sincerely,
Anonymous

From: Anonymous Person

SOTF,

RE: Case 19089, Anonymous v Supervisor of Records (City Attorney)

We have now received a response (a denial, attached) from the Supervisor of Records; please add it to your 19089 File.
The attached response bears a date of August 26, 2019, and the attached petition bears a date of May 15, 2019.
Since Aug 26 is clearly more than 10 days after May 15, a violation by respondent of SFAC 67.21(d) is clear, which is the sole issue in the case.

If permitted by your bylaws or procedures and acceptable to Respondent, I am happy to waive a public hearing with oral argument in the interest of reducing the cost to both the City and myself, and instead submit case 19089 for your Task Force's consideration on the basis of my written complaint, the attached evidence, and any response by the Respondent, with the requested relief being a finding that the Supervisor of Records violated SFAC 67.21(d) and an associated Order of Determination.

Thanks,
Anonymous

From: Anonymous Person

Dear SOTF,
Your copy of the Sunshine Ordinance ( https://sfgov.org/sunshine/provisions-sunshine-ordinance-section-67 ) is out of date (vis: http://library.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/California/administrative/chapter67thesanfranciscosunshineordinanc?f=templates$fn=default.htm$3.0 ) . At least 67.29-5 is out of date for example.

From: Anonymous Person

Good morning Supervisor of Records,

Attached is a new SFAC 67.21(d) petition. I look forward to your response in 10 days.

Sincerely,
Anonymous

From: Office of the Mayor

Good Morning:

You are receiving this notice because you are named as a Complainant or Respondent in one of the following complaints scheduled before the Compliance and Amendments Committee to: 1) hear the merits of the complaint; 2) issue a determination; and/or 3) consider referrals from a Task Force Committee.

Date: September 24, 2019

Location: City Hall, Room 408

Time: 4:30 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:

Documentation (evidence supporting/disputing complaint)

File No. 19048: Hearing on the Status of the Order of Determination: Complaint filed by Justin Barker against the San Francisco Zoo for 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. 16117: Hearing on the Status of the Order of Determination: Complaint filed by Ray Hartz against City Librarian Luis Herrera and the Public Library for violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Section 67.29-6, by failing to disclose the amount and source of all outside funds or services worth more than one hundred dollars in aggregate, accepted by the Public Library for the purpose of carrying out or assisting any City function, on their website.

File No. 19017: Hearing on the Status of the Order of Determination: Complaint filed by Elica Vafaie, Asian Americans Advancing Justice, Asian law Caucus, Jeffrey Wang, Council on American-Islamic Relations, San Francisco Bay Area, Alan Schlosser No. CA American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California against Lt. Kathryn Waaland and the Police Department for 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. 19083: Complaint filed by Tyler Breisacher against the Police Department 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. 19080: Complaint filed by Paul A. Vander Waerdt against the Dept. of Homelessness and Supportive Housing for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Section 67.25 for failing to respond to an Immediate Disclosure Request in a timely manner.

File No. 19087: Complaint filed by Peter Dolan against the San Francisco Port 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. 19089: Complaint filed by Anonymous against Dennis Herrera, Bradley Russi and the Office of the City Attorney for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Sections 67.21(d), by failing to respond to a public records request in a timely and/or complete manner.

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, September 17, 2019.

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.

From: Anonymous Person

Ms. Leger,

Can you please provide the respondents' reply and also the DCA's analysis memo re: 19089?

Thank you.

**Note this is a public mailbox, and 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).**

From: Office of the Mayor

Dear Anonymous:

Once I have those materials, I will forward.

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: Anonymous Person

Good evening Supervisor of Records,

On August 27, from this email address, I made a petition re: the Office of Mayor's refusal provision solely of the designated "Prop G" calendar (after you denied my petition on August 26 for the metadata/native formats for that same request) -- re: SOTF 19047. Among other issues, I alleged that the Mayor has other calendar records, and all those records are public unless explicitly exempt by the Sunshine Ordinance or permitted exemptions of the CPRA.

Attached is evidence supporting my position that at least one other non-"Prop G" calendar for the Mayor exists - this is a public record disclosed by the Mayor in a different request. Please note how the Prop G calendar has a footer of "PropG, Mayor (MYR)", while this attached record has a footer of "Calendar, Mayor (MYR)" and contains substantially more information. What other records of the Mayor's calendar exist I do not knoow.

(Please note, I do not accept that the attached disclosed record is in fact a sufficient disclosure, but that is a matter for a separate petition for that request.)

My August 27 petition: https://cdn.muckrock.com/outbound_request_attachments/Anonymous_2859385/72902/SFSupervisorAppealForMayor-20190827.pdf

I look forward to your response.

Thanks,
Anonymous

From: Anonymous Person

[Resending with link to attachment: https://cdn.muckrock.com/foia_files/2019/09/05/Responsive_Records_2_for_Anonymous_Request_8.21.19_Redacted.pdf ]

Good evening Supervisor of Records,

On August 27, from this email address, I made a petition re: the Office of Mayor's refusal provision solely of the designated "Prop G" calendar (after you denied my petition on August 26 for the metadata/native formats for that same request) -- re: SOTF 19047. Among other issues, I alleged that the Mayor has other calendar records, and all those records are public unless explicitly exempt by the Sunshine Ordinance or permitted exemptions of the CPRA. That petition response I believe is due today.

Attached (see link above) is evidence supporting my position that at least one other non-"Prop G" calendar for the Mayor exists - this is a public record disclosed by the Mayor in a different request. Please note how the Prop G calendar previously disclosed in this case has a footer of "PropG, Mayor (MYR)", while this attached record has a footer of "Calendar, Mayor (MYR)" and contains substantially more information. What other records of the Mayor's calendar exist I do not knoow.

(Please note, I do not accept that the attached disclosed record is in fact a sufficient disclosure, but that is a matter for a separate petition for that request.)

My August 27 petition: https://cdn.muckrock.com/outbound_request_attachments/Anonymous_2859385/72902/SFSupervisorAppealForMayor-20190827.pdf

Furthermore, please note that if you determine that the non-Prop G calendar or *any* portion of it is public in this case, you have a non-discretionary duty to immediately order its disclosure. "Upon the determination by the supervisor of records that the record is public, the supervisor of records shall immediately order the custodian of the public record to comply with the person"s request. " (SFAC 67.21(d))
Please provide a copy of that order if you so determine. I do not wish to negotiate or wait for the Mayor's Office.

I look forward to your response.

Thanks,
Anonymous

From: Office of the Mayor

Dear Anonymous:

Please see the email and attachment below in response to File No. 19089.
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: Office of the Mayor

Dear Anonymous, I just received the materials this morning.

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: Anonymous Person

**RE: File 19089**

Thank you very much. My reply for the record is attached.

I look forward to the DCA's analysis of 19089 as well.

Thanks,
Anonymous

From: Anonymous Person

Attached is my reply to your response in case 19089. It has also been sent to the SOTF.

Sincerely,
Anonymous

From: Office of the Mayor

Dear Anonymous,

This is a supplemental response to your request below. This provides additional responsive information regarding the requested calendar entries. This should obviate the portion of your complaint relating to entries outside the final Prop G calendar format.

The responsive information has been provided in a PDF format for its ease of transferability and accessibility, consistent with Cal. Gov. Code 6253.9(a)(1). Metadata from any native format has not been provided to avoid risks to the security and integrity of the original record as well as the city's data and information technology systems and to avoid the release of exempt confidential or privileged information. See Cal. Gov. Code 6253.9 (f) and 6254.19. The PDF format ensures the security and integrity of the original record as well as the security and integrity of the city's data and information technology systems.

Please also note the following redactions of exempt information and the basis for each withholding:

- Redactions at the top of each page - security procedures information related to security detail redacted pursuant to Cal. Gov. Code 6254(f).

- All redactions for senior staff check-in call entries - call-in information redacted pursuant to the official information privilege. See Cal. Evid. Code Sec. 1040(b)(2).

- All other redactions - personal cell phone numbers redacted to avoid an unwarranted breach of personal privacy pursuant to Cal. Govt. Code Secs. 6254(c), 6254(k); California Constitution, Art. I, Sec. 1.
Regards,

Hank Heckel
Compliance Officer
Office of Mayor London N. Breed
City and County of San Francisco

May 11, 2019

This is a follow up to a previous request:

The following Sunshine Task Force complaint against Office of Mayor was filed earlier today:
https://cdn.muckrock.com/outbound_request_attachments/Anonymous_2859385/72902/SF-Mayor-Calendar-SOTF-Appeal-72902.pdf

** 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,
Anonymous

Filed via MuckRock.com
E-mail (Preferred): requests@muckrock.com<mailto:requests@muckrock.com>
Upload documents directly: https://accounts.muckrock.com/accounts/login/?next=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.muckrock.com%2Faccounts%2Flogin%2F%3Fnext%3D%252Faccounts%252Fagency_login%252Foffice-of-the-mayor-3891%252Fapril-28-may-4-2019-calendar-immediate-disclosure-request-72902%252F%253Femail%253Dmayorsunshinerequests%252540sfgov.org&url_auth_token=AAAxJIlHIMv5WCJDSHoGRqLEvZI%3A1hPKiR%3Aas5RBkqejTZEnb0pOVykWXRJ0Qg
Is this email coming to the wrong contact? Something else wrong? Use the above link to let us know.

For mailed responses, please address (see note):
MuckRock News
DEPT MR 72902
411A Highland Ave
Somerville, MA 02144-2516

PLEASE NOTE: This request is not filed by a MuckRock staff member, but is being sent through MuckRock by the above in order to better track, share, and manage public records requests. Also note that improperly addressed (i.e., with the requester's name rather than "MuckRock News" and the department number) requests might be returned as undeliverable.

---

On May 11, 2019:
A new Sunshine Task Force complaint against Office of Mayor is attached.
We will also submit an entry on your webform.

** 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,
Anonymous
---

On May 9, 2019:
We do not believe your arguments re: the acceptability of PDF format are valid and intend to contest them at the Sunshine Task Force. First, 6253.9(f) protects the integrity and security of the *original* record, not the copy of the record you provide to the public. Regardless, PDFs which are not digitally signed can be quite easily edited by anyone, no differently than editing say the .ics calendar file you could have provided to us. Second, 6253.9(a)(1) plainly requires provision of the in "any electronic format in which it holds the information" and we asked for the original format. Our understanding of computer systems indicates that format is not PDF.

In the mean time, I will point out that the original electronic format of the Mayor's calendar may contain substantial additional information (such as email addresses, conference call numbers, actual names of attendees instead of group descriptions, the acceptance/rejection of individual attendees to the invite, etc.) than that which was printed out for us. In addition to, and separately from, not being in the original format, by converting to PDF, you may have withheld such portions of the record from us, without pointing out to us that the portions were in fact withheld nor providing statutory justification for exemption (required by CPRA and the Sunshine Ordinance) nor providing the name and title of the official responsible for such withholding. Please provide all such information, if any information was withheld in the PDF you released to us, as compared to the original format.

** 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.
---

On May 9, 2019:
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
Requestor: Anonymous

Email: requests@muckrock.com<mailto:requests@muckrock.com>

May 9, 2019

Re: Public Records Request received May 8, 2019

To whom it may concern:

This responds to your Immediate Disclosure Request below.

Response Dated April 24, 2019

Thank you for your inquiry. Please see attached the requested information.

This information has been provided in a PDF format for its ease of transferability and accessibility, consistent with Cal. Gov. Code 6253.9(a)(1). Moreover, pursuant to Cal. Gov. Code 6253.9 (f), an agency is not required to provide an electronic record in an electronic format that would jeopardize or compromise the security or integrity of the original record. The PDF format ensures the security and integrity of the original record.

Please also note that we are responding on behalf of the Mayor's Office only, and not on behalf of other city departments.

If you have any questions about your request or would like to submit another public records request, please feel free to contact us at mayorsunshinerequests@sfgov.org<mailto:mayorsunshinerequests@sfgov.org<mailto:mayorsunshinerequests@sfgov.org%3cmailto:mayorsunshinerequests@sfgov.org>>.
Best Regards,

Hank Heckel
Compliance Officer
Office of Mayor London N. Breed
City and County of San Francisco
---

On May 8, 2019:
Received. We are processing our response.

Thank you,

Hank Heckel
Compliance Officer
Office of Mayor London N. Breed
City and County of San Francisco
(415) 554-4796

---

On May 8, 2019:
We remind you of your obligation under City of San Jose v Superior Court (2017) to search personal accounts/devices for calendar items regarding the public's business, as appropriate.

** 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). **
---

On May 8, 2019:
This is an Immediate Disclosure Request under the San Francisco Sunshine Ordinance, made before close of business May 8, 2019.

** 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). **

We request under the San Francisco Sunshine Ordinance (Ordinance) and the California Public Records Act (CPRA):

"1. an electronic copy, in the original electronic format, with all calendar item headers, email addresses, metadata, timestamps, attachments, appendices, exhibits, and inline images, except those explicitly exempted by the Ordinance, of the Mayor's calendar, with all items, from April 28 to May 4, 2019 (inclusive)."

We remind you of your obligations to provide electronic records in the original format you hold them in. Therefore, calendars exported in the .ics, iCalendar, or vCard formats with all non-exempt headers, metadata, attachments, etc. are best. Such formats are easily exportable from Google Calendar, Microsoft Outlook, Microsoft Exchange or other common calendaring/email systems.

However, if you choose to convert calendar items, for example, to PDF or printed format, to easily redact them, you must ensure that you have preserved the full content of the original calendar item record (as specified in request "1"), which contains many detailed headers beyond the ones generally printed out. If you instead provide PDFs or printed items with only a few of the headers or lacking attachments/images, and therefore withhold the other headers/attachments without justification, you may be in violation of SF Admin Code 67.26, 67.27, Govt Code 6253(a), 6253.9, and/or 6255, and we may challenge your decision.

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

Filed via MuckRock.com
E-mail (Preferred): requests@muckrock.com<mailto:requests@muckrock.com>
Upload documents directly: https://accounts.muckrock.com/accounts/login/?next=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.muckrock.com%2Faccounts%2Flogin%2F%3Fnext%3D%252Faccounts%252Fagency_login%252Foffice-of-the-mayor-3891%252Fapril-28-may-4-2019-calendar-immediate-disclosure-request-72902%252F%253Femail%253Dmayorsunshinerequests%252540sfgov.org&url_auth_token=AAAxJIlHIMv5WCJDSHoGRqLEvZI%3A1hPKiR%3Aas5RBkqejTZEnb0pOVykWXRJ0Qg
Is this email coming to the wrong contact? Something else wrong? Use the above link to let us know.

For mailed responses, please address (see note):
MuckRock News
DEPT MR 72902
411A Highland Ave
Somerville, MA 02144-2516

PLEASE NOTE: This request is not filed by a MuckRock staff member, but is being sent through MuckRock by the above in order to better track, share, and manage public records requests. Also note that improperly addressed (i.e., with the requester's name rather than "MuckRock News" and the department number) requests might be returned as undeliverable.

From: Office of the Mayor

Please see attached correspondence.

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

From: Anonymous Person

Thank you very much for your response.

The Office of the Mayor in their supplemental response states "- Redactions at the top of each page - security procedures information related to security detail redacted pursuant to Cal. Gov. Code 6254(f)." 6254(f) is not a permitted exemption reason for the reasons specified fully on the last para on page 3 and on the full page 5 of the following petition regarding other calendars: https://cdn.muckrock.com/outbound_request_attachments/94383620Anonymous/79117/79117-SupervisorPetition-20190906_3Fx53BW.pdf , those paragraphs being incorporated by reference herein.

Furthermore, the Mayor has withheld specific metadata, partially visible on this newest PDF, that is obviously public. Note the circles with arrows on the right hand side; these indicate recurrence information in the calendar record. This information must be disclosed, as explained under heading "Recurrence Metadata" of page 4 of the link above, those paragraphs being incorporated by reference herein.

Thanks,
Anonymous

From: Anonymous Person

Also, I missed this in the last email: while I understand the Mayor's Office turned over this non-Prop G calendar eventually, I think I am still owed a determination from the Supervisor of Records on my Aug 27 petition. You did not make that determination, and that is quite important to ensuring agencies cannot run rough-shod over our transparency laws.

Please issue me the obvious determination that these non-Prop G calendars now disclosed were and are in fact public records. This should be a very simple legal determination - there was a calendar prepared, owned, used, or retained by the Office of Mayor, and so it was plainly a public record, regardless of the Sunshine Ordinance or the Good Government Guide (which has no legal authority). This is not a new petition - it was made on Aug. 27.

Thank you,
Anonymous

From: Anonymous Person

*** FILE 19047 ***

Dear SOTF,

[I earlier today sent you a follow-up to 19047 re: my more in-depth requests for calendars. This is yet another follow-up for the 19047 case using a different mechanism of enforcing compliance by the City. Please add both to the file.]

Hank Heckel stated at the Aug. 20 committee (1h 17min in audio): "Anonymous's complaint is focused on information which either (a) was provided, (b) does not exist, or (c) compromises non-substantiative metadata...". This appears to be false, evidenced by the 2nd, non-Prop G calendar attached, recently disclosed by Respondents (titled by me SUPPLEMENTAL RECORD). Note that this non-Prop G calendar does, in fact, identify (among other things) individual staff where the original disclosed record (the public-facing Prop G calendar) failed to do so.

Since your Aug. 20 committee determination, I have been pressing many parallel tracks to get all the calendar documents or force the Respondents to properly justify all their withholding. One of those methods is a second (and then third) SFAC 67.21(d) petition to the Supervisor of Records to determine that non-Prop G calendar records are also public. On the due date of my petition, the Mayor's Office provided a non-Prop G calendar and the Sup. of Records also replied to us nearly simultaneously, without formally denying or granting my petition. This appears to be a maneuver of internal negotiation between the Sup. of Records and the Respondents (Mayor's Office) allowing the Supervisor of Records to not have to make an on-the-record determination that such calendars are public. I have attached the supplemental record, Respondents' supplemental response, and the petition response.

There is no mootness rule in the Sunshine Ordinance for either your Task Force or the Supervisor of Records - the fact that the Respondents previously withheld this information, in contravention of the Sunshine Ordinance/CPRA, triggering my petitions and complaints, means I am due such an Order of Determination and still want you to find that the Respondents violated the ordinance. I will continue to pursue that Order from your Task Force and the Supervisor of Records - I want these orders on the record, and available for me to enforce at Superior Court under 67.21(f) and 67.35, if need be.

Note also that all my metadata/format objections in 19047 are still unresolved as well.

Sincerely,

Anonymous

  • SUPPLEMENTAL20RECORD20-20Responsive_Information_2_Re_Calendar_April_28_to_May_4-compressed.pdf

  • PETITION20RESPONSE20-202019-09-06_Ltr_to_Muckrock.pdf

  • SUPPLEMENTAL20RESPONSE20-20April2028-May2042C20201920Calendar20-20Immediate20Disclosu.pdf

From: Anonymous Person

*** FILE 19047 ***

Dear SOTF,

[I earlier today sent you a follow-up to 19047 re: my more in-depth requests for calendars. This is yet another follow-up for the 19047 case using a different mechanism of enforcing compliance by the City. Please add both to the file.]

Hank Heckel stated at the Aug. 20 committee (1h 17min in audio): "Anonymous's complaint is focused on information which either (a) was provided, (b) does not exist, or (c) compromises non-substantiative metadata...". This appears to be false, evidenced by the 2nd, non-Prop G calendar attached, recently disclosed by Respondents (titled by me SUPPLEMENTAL RECORD). Note that this non-Prop G calendar does, in fact, identify (among other things) individual staff where the original disclosed record (the public-facing Prop G calendar) failed to do so.

Since your Aug. 20 committee determination, I have been pressing many parallel tracks to get all the calendar documents or force the Respondents to properly justify all their withholding. One of those methods is a second (and then third) SFAC 67.21(d) petition to the Supervisor of Records to determine that non-Prop G calendar records are also public. On the due date of my petition, the Mayor's Office provided a non-Prop G calendar and the Sup. of Records also replied to us nearly simultaneously, without formally denying or granting my petition. This appears to be a maneuver of internal negotiation between the Sup. of Records and the Respondents (Mayor's Office) allowing the Supervisor of Records to not have to make an on-the-record determination that such calendars are public. I have attached the supplemental record, Respondents' supplemental response, and the petition response.

There is no mootness rule in the Sunshine Ordinance for either your Task Force or the Supervisor of Records - the fact that the Respondents previously withheld this information, in contravention of the Sunshine Ordinance/CPRA, triggering my petitions and complaints, means I am due such an Order of Determination and still want you to find that the Respondents violated the ordinance. I will continue to pursue that Order from your Task Force and the Supervisor of Records - I want these orders on the record, and available for me to enforce at Superior Court under 67.21(f) and 67.35, if need be.

Note also that all my metadata/format objections in 19047 are still unresolved as well.

Sincerely,

Anonymous

  • PETITION20RESPONSE20-202019-09-06_Ltr_to_Muckrock_Me6JkD2.pdf

  • SUPPLEMENTAL20RESPONSE20-20April2028-May2042C20201920Calendar20-20Immediate20Disclosu_PCLH7YQ.pdf

  • SUPPLEMENTAL20RECORD20-20Responsive_Information_2_Re_Calendar_April_28_to_May_4-compressed_p9Q2tQI.pdf

From: Anonymous Person

*** FILE 19047 *** . RE: your supplemental disclosure on Sept 6, and a further IMMEDIATE DISCLOSURE REQUEST

Mayor's Office,

I will not withdraw any of my allegations before the SOTF, and have informed them as such.

Hank Heckel stated at the Aug. 20 committee (1h 17min in audio): "Anonymous's complaint is focused on information which either (a) was provided, (b) does not exist, or (c) compromises non-substantiative metadata...". This appears to be false, evidenced by the 2nd, non-Prop G calendar recently disclosed by your office. Note that this non-Prop G calendar does, in fact, identify (among other things) individual staff where the original disclosed record (the public-facing Prop G calendar) failed to do so. It is possible Mr. Heckel was unaware of this other calendar - I cannot know.

Since the Aug. 20 committee determination, I have been pressing many parallel tracks to get all the calendar documents and/or force your office to properly justify all their withholding. One of those methods was a second (and then third) SFAC 67.21(d) petition to the Supervisor of Records to determine that non-Prop G calendar records are also public. On the due date of my petition, your office provided a non-Prop G calendar and the Sup. of Records also replied to us nearly simultaneously, without formally denying or granting my petition. This appears to be a maneuver of internal negotiation between the Sup. of Records and your office allowing the Sup. of Records to not have to make an on-the-record determination that such non-Prop G calendars are public.

Note when the City Attorney, as Supervisor of Records, maneuvers in this way with your office, they are *not* acting as your legal counsel, and therefore your communications regarding my petiton (but not the advice you may have requested separately from your DCA's) are NOT subject to attorney-client privilege. The Supervisor of Records is supposedly acting on behalf of the people, to enforce disclosure of records pursuant to the Sunshine Ordinance. With all that in mind, this is an IMMEDIATE DISCLOSURE REQUEST for
1) records of all written communication (emails/texts/chat/etc.) between the Mayor's Office and City Attorney's office acting in its capacity as the Supervisor of Records regarding disclosure of non-Prop G calendar information and/or my petition to the Sup. of Records on Aug. and/or the Sup. of Records' response to that petition.
2) *public information* (not records) regarding any non-written communications your office (specifically Hank Heckel) has with the City Attorney's office acting in its capacity as the Supervisor of Records regarding disclosure of non-Prop G calendar information and/or my petition to the Sup. of Records on Aug. and/or the Sup. of Records' response to that petition. I am asking for a release of oral public information in this item.

Finally, there is no mootness rule in the Sunshine Ordinance for either the Task Force or the Supervisor of Records - the fact that your office previously withheld this information, in contravention of the Sunshine Ordinance/CPRA, triggering my petitions and complaints, means I am due such an Order of Determination and still want the Task Force to find that your office violated the ordinance. I will continue to pursue that Order from the Task Force and the Supervisor of Records.

I want these orders on the record, and available for me to enforce at Superior Court under 67.21(f) and 67.35, if need be.
I intend to have enforceable precedent for the public at large so they do not have to go through this arduous process of months of appeals, petitions, and complaints.

Note also that all my metadata/format objections in 19047 are still unresolved as well.
Even in this latest disclosure you have plainly withheld public, non-exempt metadata. Note the circles with arrows next to some of the events. This is recurrence information (how often a meeting occurs). If you provided each item, and all of their metadata, as I requested originally, you would not have improperly withheld this non-exempt information.

Sincerely,

Anonymous

From: Anonymous Person

Office of Mayor,

In items #1 and #2 of this request, the phrases "on Aug." are amended to "on Aug. 27." So it should read:
"... this is an IMMEDIATE DISCLOSURE REQUEST for
1) records of all written communication (emails/texts/chat/etc.) between the Mayor's Office and City Attorney's office acting in its capacity as the Supervisor of Records regarding disclosure of non-Prop G calendar information and/or my petition to the Sup. of Records on Aug. 27 and/or the Sup. of Records' response to that petition.
2) *public information* (not records) regarding any non-written communications your office (specifically Hank Heckel) has with the City Attorney's office acting in its capacity as the Supervisor of Records regarding disclosure of non-Prop G calendar information and/or my petition to the Sup. of Records on Aug. 27 and/or the Sup. of Records' response to that petition. I am asking for a release of oral public information in this item."

If needed, you may consider this a new request with today's date, and cancel yesterday's similar IDR.

Thanks,
Anonymous

From: Office of the Mayor

Dear Anonymous,

This responds to your request below sent on Saturday September 7 and received by the Office of the Mayor on Monday, September 9. Your request purports to be an immediate disclosure request but satisfies neither the criteria of listing "Immediate Disclosure Request" nor of seeking material that is simple and routine to provide. Moreover, your request necessitates consultation with another department. Accordingly, the Office of the Mayor will treat this request as subject to the full 10 day period to respond for a regular request and reserves its rights to seek a further extension as needed. See Admin Code 67.25; Government Code § 6253(c).

Additionally, Item 2 of your request does not seek written communications and is therefore not the subject of a "records" request. Please clarify what type of information you are seeking responsive to Item 2.

Please let us know if you have questions regarding your request.

Regards,

Hank Heckel
Compliance Officer
Office of Mayor London N. Breed
City and County of San Francisco

September 9, 2019

This is a follow up to request number 19047:

Office of Mayor,

In items #1 and #2 of this request, the phrases "on Aug." are amended to "on Aug. 27." So it should read:
"... this is an IMMEDIATE DISCLOSURE REQUEST for
1) records of all written communication (emails/texts/chat/etc.) between the Mayor's Office and City Attorney's office acting in its capacity as the Supervisor of Records regarding disclosure of non-Prop G calendar information and/or my petition to the Sup. of Records on Aug. 27 and/or the Sup. of Records' response to that petition.
2) *public information* (not records) regarding any non-written communications your office (specifically Hank Heckel) has with the City Attorney's office acting in its capacity as the Supervisor of Records regarding disclosure of non-Prop G calendar information and/or my petition to the Sup. of Records on Aug. 27 and/or the Sup. of Records' response to that petition. I am asking for a release of oral public information in this item."

If needed, you may consider this a new request with today's date, and cancel yesterday's similar IDR.

Thanks,
Anonymous

Filed via MuckRock.com
E-mail (Preferred): requests@muckrock.com<mailto:requests@muckrock.com>
Upload documents directly: https://accounts.muckrock.com/accounts/login/?next=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.muckrock.com%2Faccounts%2Flogin%2F%3Fnext%3D%252Faccounts%252Fagency_login%252Foffice-of-the-mayor-3891%252Fapril-28-may-4-2019-calendar-immediate-disclosure-request-72902%252F%253Femail%253Dmayorsunshinerequests%252540sfgov.org&url_auth_token=AAAxJIxKbHL78P4hPis99lsuo1Y%3A1i7Nnp%3AGMI_PS-aiU6lbXlFyuFkKOMyQ1o
Is this email coming to the wrong contact? Something else wrong? Use the above link to let us know.

For mailed responses, please address (see note):
MuckRock News
DEPT MR 72902
411A Highland Ave
Somerville, MA 02144-2516

PLEASE NOTE: This request is not filed by a MuckRock staff member, but is being sent through MuckRock by the above in order to better track, share, and manage public records requests. Also note that improperly addressed (i.e., with the requester's name rather than "MuckRock News" and the department number) requests might be returned as undeliverable.

---

On Sept. 7, 2019:
Subject: RE: California Public Records Act Request #19047
*** FILE 19047 *** . RE: your supplemental disclosure on Sept 6, and a further IMMEDIATE DISCLOSURE REQUEST

Mayor's Office,

I will not withdraw any of my allegations before the SOTF, and have informed them as such.

Hank Heckel stated at the Aug. 20 committee (1h 17min in audio): "Anonymous's complaint is focused on information which either (a) was provided, (b) does not exist, or (c) compromises non-substantiative metadata...". This appears to be false, evidenced by the 2nd, non-Prop G calendar recently disclosed by your office. Note that this non-Prop G calendar does, in fact, identify (among other things) individual staff where the original disclosed record (the public-facing Prop G calendar) failed to do so. It is possible Mr. Heckel was unaware of this other calendar - I cannot know.

Since the Aug. 20 committee determination, I have been pressing many parallel tracks to get all the calendar documents and/or force your office to properly justify all their withholding. One of those methods was a second (and then third) SFAC 67.21(d) petition to the Supervisor of Records to determine that non-Prop G calendar records are also public. On the due date of my petition, your office provided a non-Prop G calendar and the Sup. of Records also replied to us nearly simultaneously, without formally denying or granting my petition. This appears to be a maneuver of internal negotiation between the Sup. of Records and your office allowing the Sup. of Records to not have to make an on-the-record determination that such non-Prop G calendars are public.

Note when the City Attorney, as Supervisor of Records, maneuvers in this way with your office, they are *not* acting as your legal counsel, and therefore your communications regarding my petiton (but not the advice you may have requested separately from your DCA's) are NOT subject to attorney-client privilege. The Supervisor of Records is supposedly acting on behalf of the people, to enforce disclosure of records pursuant to the Sunshine Ordinance. With all that in mind, this is an IMMEDIATE DISCLOSURE REQUEST for
1) records of all written communication (emails/texts/chat/etc.) between the Mayor's Office and City Attorney's office acting in its capacity as the Supervisor of Records regarding disclosure of non-Prop G calendar information and/or my petition to the Sup. of Records on Aug. and/or the Sup. of Records' response to that petition.
2) *public information* (not records) regarding any non-written communications your office (specifically Hank Heckel) has with the City Attorney's office acting in its capacity as the Supervisor of Records regarding disclosure of non-Prop G calendar information and/or my petition to the Sup. of Records on Aug. and/or the Sup. of Records' response to that petition. I am asking for a release of oral public information in this item.

Finally, there is no mootness rule in the Sunshine Ordinance for either the Task Force or the Supervisor of Records - the fact that your office previously withheld this information, in contravention of the Sunshine Ordinance/CPRA, triggering my petitions and complaints, means I am due such an Order of Determination and still want the Task Force to find that your office violated the ordinance. I will continue to pursue that Order from the Task Force and the Supervisor of Records.

I want these orders on the record, and available for me to enforce at Superior Court under 67.21(f) and 67.35, if need be.
I intend to have enforceable precedent for the public at large so they do not have to go through this arduous process of months of appeals, petitions, and complaints.

Note also that all my metadata/format objections in 19047 are still unresolved as well.
Even in this latest disclosure you have plainly withheld public, non-exempt metadata. Note the circles with arrows next to some of the events. This is recurrence information (how often a meeting occurs). If you provided each item, and all of their metadata, as I requested originally, you would not have improperly withheld this non-exempt information.

Sincerely,

Anonymous

---

On Sept. 7, 2019:
Subject: RE: California Public Records Act Request #19047
*** FILE 19047 ***

Dear SOTF,

[I earlier today sent you a follow-up to 19047 re: my more in-depth requests for calendars. This is yet another follow-up for the 19047 case using a different mechanism of enforcing compliance by the City. Please add both to the file.]

Hank Heckel stated at the Aug. 20 committee (1h 17min in audio): "Anonymous's complaint is focused on information which either (a) was provided, (b) does not exist, or (c) compromises non-substantiative metadata...". This appears to be false, evidenced by the 2nd, non-Prop G calendar attached, recently disclosed by Respondents (titled by me SUPPLEMENTAL RECORD). Note that this non-Prop G calendar does, in fact, identify (among other things) individual staff where the original disclosed record (the public-facing Prop G calendar) failed to do so.

Since your Aug. 20 committee determination, I have been pressing many parallel tracks to get all the calendar documents or force the Respondents to properly justify all their withholding. One of those methods is a second (and then third) SFAC 67.21(d) petition to the Supervisor of Records to determine that non-Prop G calendar records are also public. On the due date of my petition, the Mayor's Office provided a non-Prop G calendar and the Sup. of Records also replied to us nearly simultaneously, without formally denying or granting my petition. This appears to be a maneuver of internal negotiation between the Sup. of Records and the Respondents (Mayor's Office) allowing the Supervisor of Records to not have to make an on-the-record determination that such calendars are public. I have attached the supplemental record, Respondents' supplemental response, and the petition response.

There is no mootness rule in the Sunshine Ordinance for either your Task Force or the Supervisor of Records - the fact that the Respondents previously withheld this information, in contravention of the Sunshine Ordinance/CPRA, triggering my petitions and complaints, means I am due such an Order of Determination and still want you to find that the Respondents violated the ordinance. I will continue to pursue that Order from your Task Force and the Supervisor of Records - I want these orders on the record, and available for me to enforce at Superior Court under 67.21(f) and 67.35, if need be.

Note also that all my metadata/format objections in 19047 are still unresolved as well.

Sincerely,

Anonymous
---

On Sept. 7, 2019:
Subject: RE: California Public Records Act Request #19047
*** FILE 19047 ***

Dear SOTF,

[I earlier today sent you a follow-up to 19047 re: my more in-depth requests for calendars. This is yet another follow-up for the 19047 case using a different mechanism of enforcing compliance by the City. Please add both to the file.]

Hank Heckel stated at the Aug. 20 committee (1h 17min in audio): "Anonymous's complaint is focused on information which either (a) was provided, (b) does not exist, or (c) compromises non-substantiative metadata...". This appears to be false, evidenced by the 2nd, non-Prop G calendar attached, recently disclosed by Respondents (titled by me SUPPLEMENTAL RECORD). Note that this non-Prop G calendar does, in fact, identify (among other things) individual staff where the original disclosed record (the public-facing Prop G calendar) failed to do so.

Since your Aug. 20 committee determination, I have been pressing many parallel tracks to get all the calendar documents or force the Respondents to properly justify all their withholding. One of those methods is a second (and then third) SFAC 67.21(d) petition to the Supervisor of Records to determine that non-Prop G calendar records are also public. On the due date of my petition, the Mayor's Office provided a non-Prop G calendar and the Sup. of Records also replied to us nearly simultaneously, without formally denying or granting my petition. This appears to be a maneuver of internal negotiation between the Sup. of Records and the Respondents (Mayor's Office) allowing the Supervisor of Records to not have to make an on-the-record determination that such calendars are public. I have attached the supplemental record, Respondents' supplemental response, and the petition response.

There is no mootness rule in the Sunshine Ordinance for either your Task Force or the Supervisor of Records - the fact that the Respondents previously withheld this information, in contravention of the Sunshine Ordinance/CPRA, triggering my petitions and complaints, means I am due such an Order of Determination and still want you to find that the Respondents violated the ordinance. I will continue to pursue that Order from your Task Force and the Supervisor of Records - I want these orders on the record, and available for me to enforce at Superior Court under 67.21(f) and 67.35, if need be.

Note also that all my metadata/format objections in 19047 are still unresolved as well.

Sincerely,

Anonymous

---

On Sept. 6, 2019:
Subject: RE: California Public Records Act Request #19047
Also, I missed this in the last email: while I understand the Mayor's Office turned over this non-Prop G calendar eventually, I think I am still owed a determination from the Supervisor of Records on my Aug 27 petition. You did not make that determination, and that is quite important to ensuring agencies cannot run rough-shod over our transparency laws.

Please issue me the obvious determination that these non-Prop G calendars now disclosed were and are in fact public records. This should be a very simple legal determination - there was a calendar prepared, owned, used, or retained by the Office of Mayor, and so it was plainly a public record, regardless of the Sunshine Ordinance or the Good Government Guide (which has no legal authority). This is not a new petition - it was made on Aug. 27.

Thank you,
Anonymous

---

On Sept. 6, 2019:
Subject: RE: California Public Records Act Request #19047
Thank you very much for your response.

The Office of the Mayor in their supplemental response states "- Redactions at the top of each page - security procedures information related to security detail redacted pursuant to Cal. Gov. Code 6254(f)." 6254(f) is not a permitted exemption reason for the reasons specified fully on the last para on page 3 and on the full page 5 of the following petition regarding other calendars: https://cdn.muckrock.com/outbound_request_attachments/94383620Anonymous/79117/79117-SupervisorPetition-20190906_3Fx53BW.pdf , those paragraphs being incorporated by reference herein.

Furthermore, the Mayor has withheld specific metadata, partially visible on this newest PDF, that is obviously public. Note the circles with arrows on the right hand side; these indicate recurrence information in the calendar record. This information must be disclosed, as explained under heading "Recurrence Metadata" of page 4 of the link above, those paragraphs being incorporated by reference herein.

Thanks,
Anonymous

---

On May 8, 2019:
Subject: California Public Records Act Request: April 28-May 4, 2019 Calendar - Immediate Disclosure Request
This is an Immediate Disclosure Request under the San Francisco Sunshine Ordinance, made before close of business May 8, 2019.

** 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). **

We request under the San Francisco Sunshine Ordinance (Ordinance) and the California Public Records Act (CPRA):

"1. an electronic copy, in the original electronic format, with all calendar item headers, email addresses, metadata, timestamps, attachments, appendices, exhibits, and inline images, except those explicitly exempted by the Ordinance, of the Mayor's calendar, with all items, from April 28 to May 4, 2019 (inclusive)."

We remind you of your obligations to provide electronic records in the original format you hold them in. Therefore, calendars exported in the .ics, iCalendar, or vCard formats with all non-exempt headers, metadata, attachments, etc. are best. Such formats are easily exportable from Google Calendar, Microsoft Outlook, Microsoft Exchange or other common calendaring/email systems.

However, if you choose to convert calendar items, for example, to PDF or printed format, to easily redact them, you must ensure that you have preserved the full content of the original calendar item record (as specified in request "1"), which contains many detailed headers beyond the ones generally printed out. If you instead provide PDFs or printed items with only a few of the headers or lacking attachments/images, and therefore withhold the other headers/attachments without justification, you may be in violation of SF Admin Code 67.26, 67.27, Govt Code 6253(a), 6253.9, and/or 6255, and we may challenge your decision.

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

Filed via MuckRock.com
E-mail (Preferred): requests@muckrock.com<mailto:requests@muckrock.com>
Upload documents directly: https://accounts.muckrock.com/accounts/login/?next=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.muckrock.com%2Faccounts%2Flogin%2F%3Fnext%3D%252Faccounts%252Fagency_login%252Foffice-of-the-mayor-3891%252Fapril-28-may-4-2019-calendar-immediate-disclosure-request-72902%252F%253Femail%253Dmayorsunshinerequests%252540sfgov.org&url_auth_token=AAAxJIxKbHL78P4hPis99lsuo1Y%3A1i7Nnp%3AGMI_PS-aiU6lbXlFyuFkKOMyQ1o
Is this email coming to the wrong contact? Something else wrong? Use the above link to let us know.

For mailed responses, please address (see note):
MuckRock News
DEPT MR 72902
411A Highland Ave
Somerville, MA 02144-2516

PLEASE NOTE: This request is not filed by a MuckRock staff member, but is being sent through MuckRock by the above in order to better track, share, and manage public records requests. Also note that improperly addressed (i.e., with the requester's name rather than "MuckRock News" and the department number) requests might be returned as undeliverable.
[http://email.requests.muckrock.com/o/eJw1ykEOgyAQAMDXlCNhLbDsgUNjfEdDFlRikQi1SX9fL81cJ3pjrEgl5NczRw8K0Lm7WH10JtroIGgmzUBkkckxchw080wi-0EBqQugUWAkSMRxpIcZ7GQ1Tog3rVo6ztTfXZaTt1Z5k1yLaL6Eb2393Pua9_RP1-_zUj-ytuUH-d0u9w]

From: Office of the Mayor

To clarify the response below, your request did not indicate that it was an "Immediate Disclosure Request" in the subject line of the request as required by Admin Code 67.25(a).

From: Anonymous Person

Mr. Heckel,

The non-IDR nature is acknowledged.

Although the purpose of my request cannot be considered in withholding, it may help you identify responsive information. My purpose is to determine whether the Supervisor of Records and/or Mayor's Office are working to ensure the Supervisor of Records does not have to formally grant petitions under SFAC 67.21(d). Historically, the Sup. of Records denies my petitions formally. In the case of the response of Sept. 6 re: these calendars, the petition appears neither to be denied nor granted, even though there is no mootness rule in the Sunshine Ordinance, and your office had in fact withheld the non-Prop G records you later provided, as of the date I filed the petition. I am trying to figure out what's going on here. I will be attempting to find all public information from whatever agency neccessary to answer this.

Therefore, here is the public information in #2 that I would like:
* Did the Mayor's Office coordinate with the Supervisor of Records (or his delegates, including but not limited to, Bradley Russi, DCA) re: its supplementary response to my May 8 request? If so what was the nature of this coordination?
* Did the Mayor's Office request that my petition not be granted (even in part), even though the Mayor's Office did in fact provide non-Prop G calendars?
* Did the Supervisor of Records (or his delegates) request that the Mayor's Office provide the supplemental records no later than Sept. 6 to attempt to avoid granting my petition (even in part)?

Please note, I am allowed to make a oral request for information (SFAC 67.22). Therefore, if you refuse to provide a written response to the above, please provide your city phone number such that I may call and request that information. Since I believe you as Custodian of Records are in fact the person, if any, who would be coordinating with the Sup. of Records, it should take you less than the 15 minutes maximum to answer.

Thanks,
Anonymous

From: Anonymous Person

**** FILE 19089 ****

For the Sept. 24th committee hearing for 19089, I would like all of the following 3 documents entered into the record for the Complainant's side (in addition to whatever emails I have sent previously). One of these is a new document, so please add all of them in.

Thanks,
Anonymous

From: Anonymous Person

Attached is my further reply re: the SOTF's alleged lack of jurisdiction for SOTF 19089.

Thanks,
Anonymous

From: Anonymous Person

RE: Follow-up to August 27 and Sept 6 Petition/Followup from this email address re: SOTF 19047

In this petition I discussed among many other issues the improper withholding of recurrence metadata hinted at by circles with arrows in the print-outs.

Attached to this email is a new Exhibit D; it is further proof that the Mayor's Office is still withholding a public part of a record. Exhibit D is a record provided by the Mayor's Office in a completely different CPRA request. It is what a print out of a calendar item looks like when it preserves much (but still not all) of the non-exempt metadata. Recall that my original request included "...all calendar item headers, email addresses, metadata, timestamps, attachments, appendices, exhibits, and inline images, except those explicitly exempted by the Ordinance, of the Mayor's calendar, with all items,..." The recurrence, organizer, free time, status, and importance information shown in Exhibit D is exactly that type of stll improperly withheld information in this petition. It has absolutely nothing to do with information security. For some reason instead of actually printing out each of calendar item (as your office for example has done in the past), the Mayor only printed out the summary view of the calendar which excludes a lot of information.

I also maintain the other requests for determination in the remainder of the Aug. 27 and Sept. 6 petition.

Please remember that even if the Mayor's Office provides, voluntarily or perhaps by your intra-City prodding, a supplemental disclosure after my petition, and without you ordering them to do so, your office still owes a written determination under SFAC 67.21(d) whether any part of the records requested are public. There is no mootness rule in the Sunshine Ordinance.

You were very clear when you denied my petition from May 15. But your response to my Aug. 27 petition (https://cdn.muckrock.com/foia_files/2019/09/06/2019-09-06_Ltr_to_Muckrock.pdf) has no such clear grant or denial.

While the Good Government Guide you discuss in your response is advice by your office (in its attorney role) to the City agencies, it has no force of law, and it is not a determination in response to my petition.

In contrast your determinations can actually be enforced by the public in court against the City departments. Perhaps that is why you are unwilling to give positive determinations; but it is nevertheless your duty as Supervisor of Records, one which Mr. Coté has argued your office takes very seriously.

Please issue the clear granting of my Aug. 27 and Sept. 6 petitions, even in part, regardless of events occurring after the petition. Your determinations help build the "case law" that other members of the public can rely on without going through this drawn-out appeals process.

Thanks,
Anonymous

From: Anonymous Person

** 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). **

Ms. Leger,

Any chance you have the DCA memo for 19089? I'd like to answer any questions posed by the Sept. 17 agenda deadline.

Thanks,
Anonymous

From: Office of the Mayor

Dear Anonymous:

Here is the DCA Memo; just received it last Friday afternoon.

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: Anonymous Person

***** FILE 19089 *******

Thank you. My documents for the Sept 24 agenda packet, for #19089, were sent attached on Sept. 11, and I don't have any to add.

I will be present telephonically -- is 415-554-9632 the correct number?

Documents:
https://cdn.muckrock.com/outbound_request_attachments/94383620Anonymous/72902/19089-Committee-20190911.pdf
https://cdn.muckrock.com/outbound_request_attachments/94383620Anonymous/72902/19089-Rebuttal-20190906_sLZ9SVZ.pdf
https://cdn.muckrock.com/outbound_request_attachments/94383620Anonymous/72902/2-SF-Supervisor-Appeal-For-Mayor-72902-ar.pdf

Thanks,
Anonymous

From: Office of the Mayor

Dear Anonymous:

I am in receipt of and thank you for your email below. Right now I do not have a call in number for you, but will provide it once I 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: Office of the Mayor

I am in receipt of and thank you for your email below. Can you please in the future put the correct File No. is the subject line of your emails and in the body? You say in your email that this is a follow up to 19047 and it isn’t. 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: Anonymous Person

**** FILE 19089 ****

I apologize. I do understand the confusion it may cause, but unfortunately I am unable to edit or control the subject line in the MuckRock email system. I will be certain to put the file number as the first line if there's a conflict. Since both complaints arise out of a single request, the system unfortunately just sticks with the first one.

Thanks,
Anonymous

From: Anonymous Person

**** FILE 19089 ****

Submitted before 5pm, Sept 17 for the Sept 24 agenda:

Last evening, the Sup. of Records purported to use the "rule of reason" to avoid its 10 day deadline for complex/numerous petitions in various cases, which also affects one of the petitions in the 19089 series of requests.

Please include in the Sep 24 agenda packet, the attached statistical analysis of 4 years of petition responses that shows Respondent regularly fails to meet its 67.21(d) deadline, and not merely in unusual cases.

Thanks,
Anonymous

From: Anonymous Person

**** FILE SOTF 19089 ****

Attached is my further response to SOTF 19089, including an analysis of the last 4 years of Sup of Records petition responses.

(This is not a petition, just documents entered into the SOTF record and being sent to you as Respondent as a courtesy -- It may need to be directed to Mr. Coté.)

Thanks,
Anonymous

From: Office of the Mayor

Dear Anonymous,

This responds to your inquiry below. Your request seeks confidential discussions between the City Attorney's Office and a client department that is exempt from disclosure pursuant to the attorney/client privilege. See Gov't Code § 6254(k); Evidence Code § 954; Admin. Code § 67.21(k). Accordingly, we will refrain from providing any such information.

Moreover, to the extent you are making a request under Admin Code 67.22 for specific interactions between Mayor's Office staff and the City Attorney's Office, it exceeds the scope of this procedure which only applies to requests for certain information about a department's
"operations, plans, policies and positions."

Please let me know if you have any additional questions.

Regards,

Hank Heckel
Compliance Officer
Office of the Mayor

...

September 10, 2019

This is a follow up to request number 19047:

Mr. Heckel,

The non-IDR nature is acknowledged.

Although the purpose of my request cannot be considered in withholding, it may help you identify responsive information. My purpose is to determine whether the Supervisor of Records and/or Mayor's Office are working to ensure the Supervisor of Records does not have to formally grant petitions under SFAC 67.21(d). Historically, the Sup. of Records denies my petitions formally. In the case of the response of Sept. 6 re: these calendars, the petition appears neither to be denied nor granted, even though there is no mootness rule in the Sunshine Ordinance, and your office had in fact withheld the non-Prop G records you later provided, as of the date I filed the petition. I am trying to figure out what's going on here. I will be attempting to find all public information from whatever agency neccessary to answer this.

Therefore, here is the public information in #2 that I would like:
* Did the Mayor's Office coordinate with the Supervisor of Records (or his delegates, including but not limited to, Bradley Russi, DCA) re: its supplementary response to my May 8 request? If so what was the nature of this coordination?
* Did the Mayor's Office request that my petition not be granted (even in part), even though the Mayor's Office did in fact provide non-Prop G calendars?
* Did the Supervisor of Records (or his delegates) request that the Mayor's Office provide the supplemental records no later than Sept. 6 to attempt to avoid granting my petition (even in part)?

Please note, I am allowed to make a oral request for information (SFAC 67.22). Therefore, if you refuse to provide a written response to the above, please provide your city phone number such that I may call and request that information. Since I believe you as Custodian of Records are in fact the person, if any, who would be coordinating with the Sup. of Records, it should take you less than the 15 minutes maximum to answer.

Thanks,
Anonymous

Filed via MuckRock.com
E-mail (Preferred): requests@muckrock.com<mailto:requests@muckrock.com>
Upload documents directly: https://accounts.muckrock.com/accounts/login/?next=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.muckrock.com%2Faccounts%2Flogin%2F%3Fnext%3D%252Faccounts%252Fagency_login%252Foffice-of-the-mayor-3891%252Fapril-28-may-4-2019-calendar-immediate-disclosure-request-72902%252F%253Femail%253Dmayorsunshinerequests%252540sfgov.org&url_auth_token=AAAxJIxKbHL78P4hPis99lsuo1Y%3A1i7r9a%3AX4Hdw3-LDd21zmd6M98PCLSyWCs
Is this email coming to the wrong contact? Something else wrong? Use the above link to let us know.

For mailed responses, please address (see note):
MuckRock News
DEPT MR 72902
411A Highland Ave
Somerville, MA 02144-2516

PLEASE NOTE: This request is not filed by a MuckRock staff member, but is being sent through MuckRock by the above in order to better track, share, and manage public records requests. Also note that improperly addressed (i.e., with the requester's name rather than "MuckRock News" and the department number) requests might be returned as undeliverable.

---

On Sept. 10, 2019:
Subject: RE: California Public Records Act Request #19047
To clarify the response below, your request did not indicate that it was an "Immediate Disclosure Request" in the subject line of the request as required by Admin Code 67.25(a).

---

On Sept. 10, 2019:
Subject: California Public Records Act Request #19047
Dear Anonymous,

This responds to your request below sent on Saturday September 7 and received by the Office of the Mayor on Monday, September 9. Your request purports to be an immediate disclosure request but satisfies neither the criteria of listing "Immediate Disclosure Request" nor of seeking material that is simple and routine to provide. Moreover, your request necessitates consultation with another department. Accordingly, the Office of the Mayor will treat this request as subject to the full 10 day period to respond for a regular request and reserves its rights to seek a further extension as needed. See Admin Code 67.25; Government Code § 6253(c).

Additionally, Item 2 of your request does not seek written communications and is therefore not the subject of a "records" request. Please clarify what type of information you are seeking responsive to Item 2.

Please let us know if you have questions regarding your request.

Regards,

Hank Heckel
Compliance Officer
Office of Mayor London N. Breed
City and County of San Francisco

September 9, 2019

This is a follow up to request number 19047:

Office of Mayor,

In items #1 and #2 of this request, the phrases "on Aug." are amended to "on Aug. 27." So it should read:
"... this is an IMMEDIATE DISCLOSURE REQUEST for
1) records of all written communication (emails/texts/chat/etc.) between the Mayor's Office and City Attorney's office acting in its capacity as the Supervisor of Records regarding disclosure of non-Prop G calendar information and/or my petition to the Sup. of Records on Aug. 27 and/or the Sup. of Records' response to that petition.
2) *public information* (not records) regarding any non-written communications your office (specifically Hank Heckel) has with the City Attorney's office acting in its capacity as the Supervisor of Records regarding disclosure of non-Prop G calendar information and/or my petition to the Sup. of Records on Aug. 27 and/or the Sup. of Records' response to that petition. I am asking for a release of oral public information in this item."

If needed, you may consider this a new request with today's date, and cancel yesterday's similar IDR.

Thanks,
Anonymous

Filed via MuckRock.com
E-mail (Preferred): requests@muckrock.com<mailto:requests@muckrock.com<mailto:requests@muckrock.com%3cmailto:requests@muckrock.com>>
Upload documents directly: https://accounts.muckrock.com/accounts/login/?next=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.muckrock.com%2Faccounts%2Flogin%2F%3Fnext%3D%252Faccounts%252Fagency_login%252Foffice-of-the-mayor-3891%252Fapril-28-may-4-2019-calendar-immediate-disclosure-request-72902%252F%253Femail%253Dmayorsunshinerequests%252540sfgov.org&url_auth_token=AAAxJIxKbHL78P4hPis99lsuo1Y%3A1i7Nnp%3AGMI_PS-aiU6lbXlFyuFkKOMyQ1o
Is this email coming to the wrong contact? Something else wrong? Use the above link to let us know.

For mailed responses, please address (see note):
MuckRock News
DEPT MR 72902
411A Highland Ave
Somerville, MA 02144-2516

PLEASE NOTE: This request is not filed by a MuckRock staff member, but is being sent through MuckRock by the above in order to better track, share, and manage public records requests. Also note that improperly addressed (i.e., with the requester's name rather than "MuckRock News" and the department number) requests might be returned as undeliverable.

---

On Sept. 7, 2019:
Subject: RE: California Public Records Act Request #19047
*** FILE 19047 *** . RE: your supplemental disclosure on Sept 6, and a further IMMEDIATE DISCLOSURE REQUEST

Mayor's Office,

I will not withdraw any of my allegations before the SOTF, and have informed them as such.

Hank Heckel stated at the Aug. 20 committee (1h 17min in audio): "Anonymous's complaint is focused on information which either (a) was provided, (b) does not exist, or (c) compromises non-substantiative metadata...". This appears to be false, evidenced by the 2nd, non-Prop G calendar recently disclosed by your office. Note that this non-Prop G calendar does, in fact, identify (among other things) individual staff where the original disclosed record (the public-facing Prop G calendar) failed to do so. It is possible Mr. Heckel was unaware of this other calendar - I cannot know.

Since the Aug. 20 committee determination, I have been pressing many parallel tracks to get all the calendar documents and/or force your office to properly justify all their withholding. One of those methods was a second (and then third) SFAC 67.21(d) petition to the Supervisor of Records to determine that non-Prop G calendar records are also public. On the due date of my petition, your office provided a non-Prop G calendar and the Sup. of Records also replied to us nearly simultaneously, without formally denying or granting my petition. This appears to be a maneuver of internal negotiation between the Sup. of Records and your office allowing the Sup. of Records to not have to make an on-the-record determination that such non-Prop G calendars are public.

Note when the City Attorney, as Supervisor of Records, maneuvers in this way with your office, they are *not* acting as your legal counsel, and therefore your communications regarding my petiton (but not the advice you may have requested separately from your DCA's) are NOT subject to attorney-client privilege. The Supervisor of Records is supposedly acting on behalf of the people, to enforce disclosure of records pursuant to the Sunshine Ordinance. With all that in mind, this is an IMMEDIATE DISCLOSURE REQUEST for
1) records of all written communication (emails/texts/chat/etc.) between the Mayor's Office and City Attorney's office acting in its capacity as the Supervisor of Records regarding disclosure of non-Prop G calendar information and/or my petition to the Sup. of Records on Aug. and/or the Sup. of Records' response to that petition.
2) *public information* (not records) regarding any non-written communications your office (specifically Hank Heckel) has with the City Attorney's office acting in its capacity as the Supervisor of Records regarding disclosure of non-Prop G calendar information and/or my petition to the Sup. of Records on Aug. and/or the Sup. of Records' response to that petition. I am asking for a release of oral public information in this item.

Finally, there is no mootness rule in the Sunshine Ordinance for either the Task Force or the Supervisor of Records - the fact that your office previously withheld this information, in contravention of the Sunshine Ordinance/CPRA, triggering my petitions and complaints, means I am due such an Order of Determination and still want the Task Force to find that your office violated the ordinance. I will continue to pursue that Order from the Task Force and the Supervisor of Records.

I want these orders on the record, and available for me to enforce at Superior Court under 67.21(f) and 67.35, if need be.
I intend to have enforceable precedent for the public at large so they do not have to go through this arduous process of months of appeals, petitions, and complaints.

Note also that all my metadata/format objections in 19047 are still unresolved as well.
Even in this latest disclosure you have plainly withheld public, non-exempt metadata. Note the circles with arrows next to some of the events. This is recurrence information (how often a meeting occurs). If you provided each item, and all of their metadata, as I requested originally, you would not have improperly withheld this non-exempt information.

Sincerely,

Anonymous

---

On Sept. 7, 2019:
Subject: RE: California Public Records Act Request #19047
*** FILE 19047 ***

Dear SOTF,

[I earlier today sent you a follow-up to 19047 re: my more in-depth requests for calendars. This is yet another follow-up for the 19047 case using a different mechanism of enforcing compliance by the City. Please add both to the file.]

Hank Heckel stated at the Aug. 20 committee (1h 17min in audio): "Anonymous's complaint is focused on information which either (a) was provided, (b) does not exist, or (c) compromises non-substantiative metadata...". This appears to be false, evidenced by the 2nd, non-Prop G calendar attached, recently disclosed by Respondents (titled by me SUPPLEMENTAL RECORD). Note that this non-Prop G calendar does, in fact, identify (among other things) individual staff where the original disclosed record (the public-facing Prop G calendar) failed to do so.

Since your Aug. 20 committee determination, I have been pressing many parallel tracks to get all the calendar documents or force the Respondents to properly justify all their withholding. One of those methods is a second (and then third) SFAC 67.21(d) petition to the Supervisor of Records to determine that non-Prop G calendar records are also public. On the due date of my petition, the Mayor's Office provided a non-Prop G calendar and the Sup. of Records also replied to us nearly simultaneously, without formally denying or granting my petition. This appears to be a maneuver of internal negotiation between the Sup. of Records and the Respondents (Mayor's Office) allowing the Supervisor of Records to not have to make an on-the-record determination that such calendars are public. I have attached the supplemental record, Respondents' supplemental response, and the petition response.

There is no mootness rule in the Sunshine Ordinance for either your Task Force or the Supervisor of Records - the fact that the Respondents previously withheld this information, in contravention of the Sunshine Ordinance/CPRA, triggering my petitions and complaints, means I am due such an Order of Determination and still want you to find that the Respondents violated the ordinance. I will continue to pursue that Order from your Task Force and the Supervisor of Records - I want these orders on the record, and available for me to enforce at Superior Court under 67.21(f) and 67.35, if need be.

Note also that all my metadata/format objections in 19047 are still unresolved as well.

Sincerely,

Anonymous
---

On Sept. 7, 2019:
Subject: RE: California Public Records Act Request #19047
*** FILE 19047 ***

Dear SOTF,

[I earlier today sent you a follow-up to 19047 re: my more in-depth requests for calendars. This is yet another follow-up for the 19047 case using a different mechanism of enforcing compliance by the City. Please add both to the file.]

Hank Heckel stated at the Aug. 20 committee (1h 17min in audio): "Anonymous's complaint is focused on information which either (a) was provided, (b) does not exist, or (c) compromises non-substantiative metadata...". This appears to be false, evidenced by the 2nd, non-Prop G calendar attached, recently disclosed by Respondents (titled by me SUPPLEMENTAL RECORD). Note that this non-Prop G calendar does, in fact, identify (among other things) individual staff where the original disclosed record (the public-facing Prop G calendar) failed to do so.

Since your Aug. 20 committee determination, I have been pressing many parallel tracks to get all the calendar documents or force the Respondents to properly justify all their withholding. One of those methods is a second (and then third) SFAC 67.21(d) petition to the Supervisor of Records to determine that non-Prop G calendar records are also public. On the due date of my petition, the Mayor's Office provided a non-Prop G calendar and the Sup. of Records also replied to us nearly simultaneously, without formally denying or granting my petition. This appears to be a maneuver of internal negotiation between the Sup. of Records and the Respondents (Mayor's Office) allowing the Supervisor of Records to not have to make an on-the-record determination that such calendars are public. I have attached the supplemental record, Respondents' supplemental response, and the petition response.

There is no mootness rule in the Sunshine Ordinance for either your Task Force or the Supervisor of Records - the fact that the Respondents previously withheld this information, in contravention of the Sunshine Ordinance/CPRA, triggering my petitions and complaints, means I am due such an Order of Determination and still want you to find that the Respondents violated the ordinance. I will continue to pursue that Order from your Task Force and the Supervisor of Records - I want these orders on the record, and available for me to enforce at Superior Court under 67.21(f) and 67.35, if need be.

Note also that all my metadata/format objections in 19047 are still unresolved as well.

Sincerely,

Anonymous

---

On Sept. 6, 2019:
Subject: RE: California Public Records Act Request #19047
Also, I missed this in the last email: while I understand the Mayor's Office turned over this non-Prop G calendar eventually, I think I am still owed a determination from the Supervisor of Records on my Aug 27 petition. You did not make that determination, and that is quite important to ensuring agencies cannot run rough-shod over our transparency laws.

Please issue me the obvious determination that these non-Prop G calendars now disclosed were and are in fact public records. This should be a very simple legal determination - there was a calendar prepared, owned, used, or retained by the Office of Mayor, and so it was plainly a public record, regardless of the Sunshine Ordinance or the Good Government Guide (which has no legal authority). This is not a new petition - it was made on Aug. 27.

Thank you,
Anonymous

---

On Sept. 6, 2019:
Subject: RE: California Public Records Act Request #19047
Thank you very much for your response.

The Office of the Mayor in their supplemental response states "- Redactions at the top of each page - security procedures information related to security detail redacted pursuant to Cal. Gov. Code 6254(f)." 6254(f) is not a permitted exemption reason for the reasons specified fully on the last para on page 3 and on the full page 5 of the following petition regarding other calendars: https://cdn.muckrock.com/outbound_request_attachments/94383620Anonymous/79117/79117-SupervisorPetition-20190906_3Fx53BW.pdf , those paragraphs being incorporated by reference herein.

Furthermore, the Mayor has withheld specific metadata, partially visible on this newest PDF, that is obviously public. Note the circles with arrows on the right hand side; these indicate recurrence information in the calendar record. This information must be disclosed, as explained under heading "Recurrence Metadata" of page 4 of the link above, those paragraphs being incorporated by reference herein.

Thanks,
Anonymous

---

On May 8, 2019:
Subject: California Public Records Act Request: April 28-May 4, 2019 Calendar - Immediate Disclosure Request
This is an Immediate Disclosure Request under the San Francisco Sunshine Ordinance, made before close of business May 8, 2019.

** 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). **

We request under the San Francisco Sunshine Ordinance (Ordinance) and the California Public Records Act (CPRA):

"1. an electronic copy, in the original electronic format, with all calendar item headers, email addresses, metadata, timestamps, attachments, appendices, exhibits, and inline images, except those explicitly exempted by the Ordinance, of the Mayor's calendar, with all items, from April 28 to May 4, 2019 (inclusive)."

We remind you of your obligations to provide electronic records in the original format you hold them in. Therefore, calendars exported in the .ics, iCalendar, or vCard formats with all non-exempt headers, metadata, attachments, etc. are best. Such formats are easily exportable from Google Calendar, Microsoft Outlook, Microsoft Exchange or other common calendaring/email systems.

However, if you choose to convert calendar items, for example, to PDF or printed format, to easily redact them, you must ensure that you have preserved the full content of the original calendar item record (as specified in request "1"), which contains many detailed headers beyond the ones generally printed out. If you instead provide PDFs or printed items with only a few of the headers or lacking attachments/images, and therefore withhold the other headers/attachments without justification, you may be in violation of SF Admin Code 67.26, 67.27, Govt Code 6253(a), 6253.9, and/or 6255, and we may challenge your decision.

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

Filed via MuckRock.com
E-mail (Preferred): requests@muckrock.com<mailto:requests@muckrock.com<mailto:requests@muckrock.com%3cmailto:requests@muckrock.com>>
Upload documents directly: https://accounts.muckrock.com/accounts/login/?next=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.muckrock.com%2Faccounts%2Flogin%2F%3Fnext%3D%252Faccounts%252Fagency_login%252Foffice-of-the-mayor-3891%252Fapril-28-may-4-2019-calendar-immediate-disclosure-request-72902%252F%253Femail%253Dmayorsunshinerequests%252540sfgov.org&url_auth_token=AAAxJIxKbHL78P4hPis99lsuo1Y%3A1i7Nnp%3AGMI_PS-aiU6lbXlFyuFkKOMyQ1o
Is this email coming to the wrong contact? Something else wrong? Use the above link to let us know.

For mailed responses, please address (see note):
MuckRock News
DEPT MR 72902
411A Highland Ave
Somerville, MA 02144-2516

PLEASE NOTE: This request is not filed by a MuckRock staff member, but is being sent through MuckRock by the above in order to better track, share, and manage public records requests. Also note that improperly addressed (i.e., with the requester's name rather than "MuckRock News" and the department number) requests might be returned as undeliverable.
[http://email.requests.muckrock.com/o/eJw1ykEOgyAQAMDXlCNhLbDsgUNjfEdDFlRikQi1SX9fL81cJ3pjrEgl5NczRw8K0Lm7WH10JtroIGgmzUBkkckxchw080wi-0EBqQugUWAkSMRxpIcZ7GQ1Tog3rVo6ztTfXZaTt1Z5k1yLaL6Eb2393Pua9_RP1-_zUj-ytuUH-d0u9w]

---

On Sept. 9, 2019:
Subject: RE: California Public Records Act Request #19047
Office of Mayor,

In items #1 and #2 of this request, the phrases "on Aug." are amended to "on Aug. 27." So it should read:
"... this is an IMMEDIATE DISCLOSURE REQUEST for
1) records of all written communication (emails/texts/chat/etc.) between the Mayor's Office and City Attorney's office acting in its capacity as the Supervisor of Records regarding disclosure of non-Prop G calendar information and/or my petition to the Sup. of Records on Aug. 27 and/or the Sup. of Records' response to that petition.
2) *public information* (not records) regarding any non-written communications your office (specifically Hank Heckel) has with the City Attorney's office acting in its capacity as the Supervisor of Records regarding disclosure of non-Prop G calendar information and/or my petition to the Sup. of Records on Aug. 27 and/or the Sup. of Records' response to that petition. I am asking for a release of oral public information in this item."

If needed, you may consider this a new request with today's date, and cancel yesterday's similar IDR.

Thanks,
Anonymous

---

On Sept. 7, 2019:
Subject: RE: California Public Records Act Request #19047
*** FILE 19047 *** . RE: your supplemental disclosure on Sept 6, and a further IMMEDIATE DISCLOSURE REQUEST

Mayor's Office,

I will not withdraw any of my allegations before the SOTF, and have informed them as such.

Hank Heckel stated at the Aug. 20 committee (1h 17min in audio): "Anonymous's complaint is focused on information which either (a) was provided, (b) does not exist, or (c) compromises non-substantiative metadata...". This appears to be false, evidenced by the 2nd, non-Prop G calendar recently disclosed by your office. Note that this non-Prop G calendar does, in fact, identify (among other things) individual staff where the original disclosed record (the public-facing Prop G calendar) failed to do so. It is possible Mr. Heckel was unaware of this other calendar - I cannot know.

Since the Aug. 20 committee determination, I have been pressing many parallel tracks to get all the calendar documents and/or force your office to properly justify all their withholding. One of those methods was a second (and then third) SFAC 67.21(d) petition to the Supervisor of Records to determine that non-Prop G calendar records are also public. On the due date of my petition, your office provided a non-Prop G calendar and the Sup. of Records also replied to us nearly simultaneously, without formally denying or granting my petition. This appears to be a maneuver of internal negotiation between the Sup. of Records and your office allowing the Sup. of Records to not have to make an on-the-record determination that such non-Prop G calendars are public.

Note when the City Attorney, as Supervisor of Records, maneuvers in this way with your office, they are *not* acting as your legal counsel, and therefore your communications regarding my petiton (but not the advice you may have requested separately from your DCA's) are NOT subject to attorney-client privilege. The Supervisor of Records is supposedly acting on behalf of the people, to enforce disclosure of records pursuant to the Sunshine Ordinance. With all that in mind, this is an IMMEDIATE DISCLOSURE REQUEST for
1) records of all written communication (emails/texts/chat/etc.) between the Mayor's Office and City Attorney's office acting in its capacity as the Supervisor of Records regarding disclosure of non-Prop G calendar information and/or my petition to the Sup. of Records on Aug. and/or the Sup. of Records' response to that petition.
2) *public information* (not records) regarding any non-written communications your office (specifically Hank Heckel) has with the City Attorney's office acting in its capacity as the Supervisor of Records regarding disclosure of non-Prop G calendar information and/or my petition to the Sup. of Records on Aug. and/or the Sup. of Records' response to that petition. I am asking for a release of oral public information in this item.

Finally, there is no mootness rule in the Sunshine Ordinance for either the Task Force or the Supervisor of Records - the fact that your office previously withheld this information, in contravention of the Sunshine Ordinance/CPRA, triggering my petitions and complaints, means I am due such an Order of Determination and still want the Task Force to find that your office violated the ordinance. I will continue to pursue that Order from the Task Force and the Supervisor of Records.

I want these orders on the record, and available for me to enforce at Superior Court under 67.21(f) and 67.35, if need be.
I intend to have enforceable precedent for the public at large so they do not have to go through this arduous process of months of appeals, petitions, and complaints.

Note also that all my metadata/format objections in 19047 are still unresolved as well.
Even in this latest disclosure you have plainly withheld public, non-exempt metadata. Note the circles with arrows next to some of the events. This is recurrence information (how often a meeting occurs). If you provided each item, and all of their metadata, as I requested originally, you would not have improperly withheld this non-exempt information.

Sincerely,

Anonymous

---

On Sept. 7, 2019:
Subject: RE: California Public Records Act Request #19047
*** FILE 19047 ***

Dear SOTF,

[I earlier today sent you a follow-up to 19047 re: my more in-depth requests for calendars. This is yet another follow-up for the 19047 case using a different mechanism of enforcing compliance by the City. Please add both to the file.]

Hank Heckel stated at the Aug. 20 committee (1h 17min in audio): "Anonymous's complaint is focused on information which either (a) was provided, (b) does not exist, or (c) compromises non-substantiative metadata...". This appears to be false, evidenced by the 2nd, non-Prop G calendar attached, recently disclosed by Respondents (titled by me SUPPLEMENTAL RECORD). Note that this non-Prop G calendar does, in fact, identify (among other things) individual staff where the original disclosed record (the public-facing Prop G calendar) failed to do so.

Since your Aug. 20 committee determination, I have been pressing many parallel tracks to get all the calendar documents or force the Respondents to properly justify all their withholding. One of those methods is a second (and then third) SFAC 67.21(d) petition to the Supervisor of Records to determine that non-Prop G calendar records are also public. On the due date of my petition, the Mayor's Office provided a non-Prop G calendar and the Sup. of Records also replied to us nearly simultaneously, without formally denying or granting my petition. This appears to be a maneuver of internal negotiation between the Sup. of Records and the Respondents (Mayor's Office) allowing the Supervisor of Records to not have to make an on-the-record determination that such calendars are public. I have attached the supplemental record, Respondents' supplemental response, and the petition response.

There is no mootness rule in the Sunshine Ordinance for either your Task Force or the Supervisor of Records - the fact that the Respondents previously withheld this information, in contravention of the Sunshine Ordinance/CPRA, triggering my petitions and complaints, means I am due such an Order of Determination and still want you to find that the Respondents violated the ordinance. I will continue to pursue that Order from your Task Force and the Supervisor of Records - I want these orders on the record, and available for me to enforce at Superior Court under 67.21(f) and 67.35, if need be.

Note also that all my metadata/format objections in 19047 are still unresolved as well.

Sincerely,

Anonymous
---

On May 8, 2019:
Subject: California Public Records Act Request: April 28-May 4, 2019 Calendar - Immediate Disclosure Request
This is an Immediate Disclosure Request under the San Francisco Sunshine Ordinance, made before close of business May 8, 2019.

** 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). **

We request under the San Francisco Sunshine Ordinance (Ordinance) and the California Public Records Act (CPRA):

"1. an electronic copy, in the original electronic format, with all calendar item headers, email addresses, metadata, timestamps, attachments, appendices, exhibits, and inline images, except those explicitly exempted by the Ordinance, of the Mayor's calendar, with all items, from April 28 to May 4, 2019 (inclusive)."

We remind you of your obligations to provide electronic records in the original format you hold them in. Therefore, calendars exported in the .ics, iCalendar, or vCard formats with all non-exempt headers, metadata, attachments, etc. are best. Such formats are easily exportable from Google Calendar, Microsoft Outlook, Microsoft Exchange or other common calendaring/email systems.

However, if you choose to convert calendar items, for example, to PDF or printed format, to easily redact them, you must ensure that you have preserved the full content of the original calendar item record (as specified in request "1"), which contains many detailed headers beyond the ones generally printed out. If you instead provide PDFs or printed items with only a few of the headers or lacking attachments/images, and therefore withhold the other headers/attachments without justification, you may be in violation of SF Admin Code 67.26, 67.27, Govt Code 6253(a), 6253.9, and/or 6255, and we may challenge your decision.

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

Filed via MuckRock.com
E-mail (Preferred): requests@muckrock.com<mailto:requests@muckrock.com>
Upload documents directly: https://accounts.muckrock.com/accounts/login/?next=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.muckrock.com%2Faccounts%2Flogin%2F%3Fnext%3D%252Faccounts%252Fagency_login%252Foffice-of-the-mayor-3891%252Fapril-28-may-4-2019-calendar-immediate-disclosure-request-72902%252F%253Femail%253Dmayorsunshinerequests%252540sfgov.org&url_auth_token=AAAxJIxKbHL78P4hPis99lsuo1Y%3A1i7r9a%3AX4Hdw3-LDd21zmd6M98PCLSyWCs
Is this email coming to the wrong contact? Something else wrong? Use the above link to let us know.

For mailed responses, please address (see note):
MuckRock News
DEPT MR 72902
411A Highland Ave
Somerville, MA 02144-2516

PLEASE NOTE: This request is not filed by a MuckRock staff member, but is being sent through MuckRock by the above in order to better track, share, and manage public records requests. Also note that improperly addressed (i.e., with the requester's name rather than "MuckRock News" and the department number) requests might be returned as undeliverable.
[http://email.requests.muckrock.com/o/eJw1y0EOwiAQAMDXyJHsstCyBw4YfYdBSluilAjWxN_bi_eZyRkziFRCft7y5BDQkhnF6oYYDSfLNioAsiFo4jCrceY7TZqUyE4BMjAeB4FYomTtB7zAGfzVK0v-pKGl1576u8uyx0er8SFjLaK5Er619X3ra97SHx2-z0v9yNqWH8NDLm8]

From: Anonymous Person

1. The Supervisor of Records does not act as legal counsel for the city when determining, as a neutral, whether a record is public or not. Attorney-client privilege does not apply. If nothing else this will be a good test case to see just how far the City can go in wrapping its maneuverings in purported privileges.

2. My request's 2nd part was precisely for an "operation" of the Mayor's office, and should be answered. In addition, I will ask for your office's "position" on whether the Supervisor of Records should neither deny nor grant a petition, when the records are indeed public, as demonstrated by your department disclosing them after the petition's filing.

3. This is a request for a statement under 67.21(c) re: the quantity, existence, form, and nature of each set of records that I requested. Note that 67.21(c) explicitly requires a response EVEN when the records are exempt from disclosure.

Thanks,
Anonymous

From: Office of the Mayor

Good Morning:

The agenda packet for the September 24, 2019, Compliance and Amendments Committee, 4:30 pm hearing is available online at the following link:

https://sfgov.org/sunshine/sites/default/files/cac092419_agenda.pdf

The packet material is linked to each item listed on the agenda mark with an "attachment". Click anywhere on the title of the item to open the link to the pdf of the packet material in question.

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: Anonymous Person

Thanks Ms. Leger!

From: Office of the Mayor

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 Sunshine Ordinance Task Force to: 1) hear the merits of the complaint; 2) issue a determination; and/or 3) consider referrals from a Task Force Committee.

Date: October 2, 2019

Location: City Hall, Room 408

Time: 4:00 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. 17097: Complaint filed by Marc Bruno against the Planning Department, Board of appeals and the Department of Building Inspection for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Sections 67.21 and 67.25, by failing to respond to a public records request in a timely and/or complete manner.

File No. 17114: Complaint filed by Marc Bruno against the Department of Building Inspection for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Sections 67.21 and 67.25, by failing to respond to a public records request in a timely and/or complete manner.

File No. 17115: Complaint filed by Marc Bruno against the Board of Appeals for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Sections 67.21 and 67.25, by failing to respond to a public records request in a timely and/or complete manner.

File No. 17079: Complaint filed by Mary Miles against Mike Sallaberry, San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency, 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. 17080: Complaint filed by Mary Miles against Will Tabajonda, San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency, 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. 17081: Complaint filed by Mary Miles against Luis Montoya, San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency, 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. 19044: Complaint filed by Anonymous against Dennis Herrera and the Office of the City Attorney 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. 19047: Complaint filed by Anonymous against Mayor London Breed, Hank Heckel and the Office of the Mayor for allegedly violating Administrative Code, (Sunshine Ordinance) Sections 67.25 and 67.29-5, by failing to respond to a request for public records in a timely and/or complete manner.

File No. 19010: Hearing to consider action to close Sunshine Ordinance Task Force complaints due inactivity and other violations of the SOTF Complaint Procedures for the following files:

17102 Liz Arbus vs Arts Commission

18071 Liz Arbus vs Arts Commission

18085 Liz Arbus vs Arts Commission

18090 Carlos Petri vs Office of the City Attorney

18091 Mark Zuckerberg vs Arts Commission

19009 Lucinda Page vs Arts Commission.

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, September 25, 2019.

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.

From: Anonymous Person

**** FILE 19047 ****

Can you please send the current PDF of the 19047 file, so I know what I need to ask to be added?

From: Office of the Mayor

Dear Anonymous:

Attached is the Agenda for the Complaint Committee hearing. Your file nos. 19047 and 19044 are included. Just place your curser on the file description and your records should appear.

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: Anonymous Person

Thanks - this is the file from the 08/20 committee meeting. Will the various documents I've sent the Task Force since 8/20 be added, or should i resend all further documents all at once to be added for the 10/02 meeting?

From: Office of the Mayor

Dear Anonymous:

Please only send me documents that you have not already forwarded. 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: Anonymous Person

Ms. Leger and/or Chair Wolfe,

I am not sure which of you has authority over the agenda for Oct. 2. I am the complainant in 19044 and 19047. I have 2 requests:

1. Please correct the agenda outline for Oct. 2 to reflect the correct allegations as stated in my original complaints; they currently list the wrong sections. I will be asking the task force to find violations of all of these:
- 19044 should be: SF Admin Code (Sunshine Ordinance) 67.27, 67.26, and 67.21; Gov Code (CPRA) 6253.9, 6253, and 6255 -- see complaint, P357 et seq of the Aug 20 file.
- 19047 should be: SF Admin Code (Sunshine Ordinance) 67.27, 67.26, and 67.21; Gov Code (CPRA) 6253.9, 6253, and 6255 -- see complaint, P493 et seq of the Aug 20 file.

2. I request the scheduling order to have 19047 go immediately *before* 19044 on Oct. 2 agenda (regardless of when in the schedule they are). I believe the discussion for 19047 will allow a more comfortable introduction to 19044, which is more complicated. 19047 allows for introducing the task force to certain technical concepts which would then be dived into more in depth in 19044. And I believe the complaint committee asked the parties to help educate the Task Force on the technical issues.

Thank you for your consideration,

Anonymous

From: Anonymous Person

**** FILE 19047 ****

Please include the attached PDF at the top of Complainant's documents in the 19047 packet for Oct. 2. It is the draft of the presentation I will give on Oct. 2. If the Task Force could have print outs to follow along with me over the conference call as I go through the "slides," that would be much appreciated.

The packet should also include: the Aug 20 state of the file, the one document I previously indicated to you was erroneously missing on Aug 20, and the various petitions and supplemental responses received from Respondents in the interim that I previously forwarded to you. Please let me know if you will need those resent.

And as stated earlier, the 19047 agenda caption should accurately reflect my complaint, i.e. alleged violations of SF Admin Code (Sunshine Ordinance) 67.27, 67.26, and 67.21; Gov Code (CPRA) 6253.9, 6253, and 6255 -- see complaint, P493 et seq of the Aug 20 file. 67.25 and 67.29-5 were NOT alleged.

Please confirm you got this new document as well please.

Looking forward to getting this case resolved!

Thanks,
Anonymous

From: Office of the Mayor

Dear Anonymous:

I have the call in information for your appearance tomorrow. Please call 1-877-402-9753 and use participant Code 5547726. Please call me at 4:00 pm so that I can assure you are heard in the hearing room. If you still have questions, please get in touch with me at the number below. I will be heading up to the conference room tomorrow at 3:30 pm. 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: Anonymous Person

**** FILE 19089 ****
Thank you - will do.

From: Office of the Mayor

Dear Anonymous:

I meant for you to call me tomorrow at 4:00 PM to ensure that you are on line and we can hear you before the hearing begins. 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: Anonymous Person

Yes I will call the bridge at 4pm tomorrow. Hopefully the audio is clearer this time around!

Thanks,
Anonymous

From: Office of the Mayor

Dear Anonymous:

I think the call might come through clearer if you do not use an speaker phone. What do you think?

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: Anonymous Person

I was not using speaker phone last time - but I will be using a professional bluetooth set this time, so my side should work better hopefully.

Last time, the podium was inaudible so I could not really hear respondent - any chance the volume of that audio line on the conference call could be increased a bit?

Thanks,
Anonymous

From: Anonymous Person

Ms. Leger,

I have joined the conference line, it states the host has not arrived.

From: Anonymous Person

Ms. Leger- can you please increase the volume of the podium? Mr. Hartz is barely audible.

From: Anonymous Person

Thanks Ms. Leger - you got the 19047 presentation and agenda correction as well?

From: Office of the Mayor

Dear Anonymous:

Yes, I did get the 19047 presentation and it is in the file. With regard to changing your complaint, typically, we only notice Sunshine Ordinance numbers, not government codes. However, I have included them in your complaint.

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: Office of the Mayor

Anonymous: You need to find a way to correctly reference the file numbers in your emails and documents. It can be confusing when you don't and I want to make certain that your materials go into the correct file. 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: Anonymous Person

Thank you - and I'm sorry for the confusion, I will work to fix the subjects.

Anonymous

From: Office of the Mayor

Dear SOTF Parties:

The agenda packet for the October 2, 2019, Sunshine Ordinance Task Force, 4:00 pm hearing is available online at the following link:

https://sfgov.org/sunshine/sites/default/files/sotf_100219_agenda.pdf

The packet material is linked to each item listed on the agenda mark with an "attachment". Click anywhere on the title of the item to open the link to the pdf of the packet material in question.

I will be on vacation beginning September 30 returning October 18. Should you have questions or need assistance please contact Victor Young at 415-554-7724 or email the Sunshine Task Force at sotf@sfgov.org<mailto:sotf@sfgov.org>. Otherwise I will respond to you inquiry upon my return. 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: Office of the Mayor

Please see the attached response to your petitions.

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

From: Anonymous Person

Thank you for your responses.

Re: Times Mirror:
There's a reason Gov Code 6255 and every "similar" exemption is explicitly prohibited by the Sunshine Ordinance in the City of SF.
As you admit, Gov Code 6254(f) was not cited in Times Mirror.
I will continue to appeal this at every level - the City is blatantly ignoring the text of the laws and judge's opinions.

No response is required.

Sincerely,

Anonymous

From: Office of the Mayor

Dear Parties:

Please see attached the signed Order of Determination in file no. 19047 which was published today.

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: Anonymous Person

Thank you SOTF for the Order.

Office of the Mayor, Mayor Breed, and Mr. Heckel,

Under SF Admin Code 67.21(e), please provide in no later than 5 calendar days all non-Prop-G and ICS (both Prop G and non-Prop G) calendar records from April 28 to May 4, 2019 (inclusive).

You may delete (to withhold/redact) whatever portions of the ICS files that you wish to argue is exempt; please cite each of your redactions as required by SFAC 67.26 and SFAC 67.27.

Please reply all, which will all enter your responses into the public file - all of your responses are after all public records.

Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.

Sincerely,
Anonymous

From: Office of the Mayor


Thank you for your email. Please note my new email address is mayorlondonbreed@sfgov.org<mailto:mayorlondonbreed@sfgov.org>. Please direct your correspondence to this new address.

Please use the following resources are available for your more immediate needs:

If you are writing with a request for non-emergency neighborhood services (such as park repairs, street and sidewalk cleaning, and tree maintenance), or for inquiries regarding the shelter reservation waitlist, please Call 3-1-1. If your request has not been addressed and you would like our office to follow up, please contact the Mayor’s Office of Neighborhood Services at (415) 554-5977 with your confirmation number.

If there is a homeless individual in distress on the street in need of assistance, please contact the SF Homeless Outreach Team (SF HOT) at the following dispatch numbers:

• For all urgent matters: 415-355-7445
(Services include 24/7 urgent/emergent client transportation; transportation to shelter drop-in center or resource center; and client care coordination)
• For non-urgent matters: 415-355-7401
(Services include outreach requests and/or client wellness checks; and client consultation)

**Please note that non-urgent calls to the urgent dispatch lines will be asked to call the non-urgent line so that the urgent medical providers and operators can be available for emergency situations.**

If you wish to make a Request for Public Records or other request under the City’s Sunshine Ordinance, please contact your request to mayorsunshinerequests@sfgov.org. If you are making an immediate disclosure request, please remember to put the words “Immediate Disclosure Request” in the subject line of your e-mail.

For all scheduling inquiries and requests, please contact scheduling@sfgov.org<mailto:scheduling@sfgov.org> with the following information:

• For events: event details and nature of request (speaking, attending, hosting, etc.)
• For meetings: purpose of meeting and meeting attendees

Sincerely,

London N. Breed
Mayor

From: Office of the Mayor

Dear Anonymous,

Please see the attached files responsive to the referenced Order and your request below.

Please note that the "non-Prop G" calendar records you reference were previously produced in a supplemental production on September 6 for these dates. To the extent the production of those records is a subject of the Order those records have already been produced.

Please note that we are producing a daily view of the "non-Prop G" calendar records in a text PDF as opposed to a scanned PDF as requested. Thus, to the extent that format is a subject of the Order we are providing those records herewith.

Please note that we are producing individual ICS calendar views of entries from these dates in PDF. However, our understanding is that SOTF has not made a final determination as to the ICS format and the inherent metadata associated with that format or for metadata associated with other Outlook "native" formats such as .msg.

As you know, this issue was discussed extensively during the hearing on this file as was related metadata issues concerning your complaints on request to the City Attorney's Office at the same hearing. At the conclusion of that hearing SOTF referred all such metadata issues from the City Attorney complaints to the Technology Committee. I also requested that the metadata issues in this file also be so referred. SOTF granted that request.

At the October 22 Technology Committee meeting there was again extensive discussion of these issues including the scope and manner of appropriate redactions for these types of metadata. These issues were not resolved and were narrowed and referred back to the full Task Force.

Pending further determinations regarding such issues we maintain our objections to production in ICS format with metadata. We are also continuing to consult with the City Attorney's Office and City IT regarding these issues and other potential exemptions in the meantime. Accordingly, we are not currently providing such formats and metadata pending this consultation, pursuant to at least Cal. Gov. Code 6253.9(f) and 6254.19 and Admin. Code 67.21(l).

We reserve our rights to amend and supplement this response in accordance with the outcome of this consultation.

Please note the following redactions in this production.

* The redacted information associated with recurrences has been withheld for security reasons pursuant to Cal. Gov. Code 6254(f);
* The redacted "SID" information about the Mayor's security detail has been withheld for security reasons pursuant to Cal. Gov. Code 6254(f);
* The cell phone and dial in numbers have been redacted to protect personal privacy and to protect official information. See Cal. Govt. Code Secs. 6254(c), 6254(k); California Constitution, Art. I, Sec. 1; Cal. Evid. Code Sec. 1040(b)(2).
We reserve all rights to seek clarification or a challenge to any part of the referenced Order.
Regards,

Hank Heckel
Compliance Officer
Office of the Mayor
City and County of San Francisco

Warning An exclamation point.

There are too many files to display on this communication. See all files

From: Anonymous Person

cc: SOTF, for file 19047

City and County of San Francisco, Mr. Heckel, Mayor Breed, Office of the Mayor,

1. There is no such thing in Microsoft Outlook as "individual ICS calendar views of entries" that you claim you provided. ICS is a file format, not a view. The word ICS there has no meaning. You provided "Memo Style" views as the print-outs state.

2. You have not produced text PDFs either. At least Memo Style_Redacted, Memo Style 3_Redacted, Memo Style 19_Redacted and possibly others are inexplicably in an image format with no selectable text.

3. You provided some records that have nothing to do with this request. For example (there are others), you provided Memo_Style_19_Redacted.pdf which is for an Oct. 21 meeting. Order 19047 is for calendar entries from April 28 to May 4, 2019 (inclusive). Are you sure you provided all of the requested records even in PDF form?

4. You have refused to provide ICS files with redactions and justifications within 5 days of the order:

Re-listen to the audio recording for the hearing https://sanfrancisco.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=95&clip_id=34216
- 19047, 2:12:40 - the motion includes 67.21(l) failure to produce requested ICS format as the violation (more violations are also added)
- 19047, 2:18:20 - Clerk Young repeats 67.21(l) as one of the specific violations prior to SOTF voting 7-0
- 19044, 3:48:33 - it is clarified that 19047 is done, and an order has been made
- 19044, 3:48:54 - you asked for the *metadata issue* in ICS calendars to be considered by the IT committee (which I have already previously acknowledged)

Emails in .MSG format were not relevant to Order 19047, only calendars in .ICS was. This solely confuses matters.

You were indeed free to produce .ICS calendar files with whatever you wanted redacted and justified, including redacting all of the metadata (just like the City Attorney already did in 19044 with email headers). Your Chief of Information Security even had suggested such a redaction during the hearing - leaving only the parts of the ICS file that were visible on the individual meeting view. Parts of the ICS file are *not* metadata by any definition of that term, such as the subject, location, time, attendees, etc. of the meeting. Yet you still refused to provide the .ICS calendars.

In fact, multiple times now you could have produced even a single redacted .ICS file to enter into the SOTF record and discuss the redactions, but you refuse to do so, which would appear to be for the sole purpose of frustrating the ability of SOTF to see how easy this really is.

We reserve the right to file suit against the City to enforce Order 19047, for production of the redacted .ICS files independent of the Order, or both.

Sincerely,

Anonymous

From: Office of the Mayor

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 Sunshine Ordinance Task Force to: 1) hear the merits of the complaint; 2) issue a determination; and/or 3) consider referrals from a Task Force Committee.

Date: December 4, 2019

Location: City Hall, Room 408

Time: 4:00 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. 19077: Complaint filed by Ahimsa Porter Sumchai against Mayor London Breed 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 and 67.7 for not posting the Agenda in a timely manner.

File No. 19079: Complaint filed by Thomas Picarello against the Dept. of Homelessness and Supportive Housing for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Section 67.25 for failing to respond to an Immediate Disclosure Request in a timely manner.

File No. 19089: Complaint filed by Anonymous against Dennis Herrera and the Office of the City Attorney for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Sections 67.21(d), by failing to provide a determination to a Supervisor of Records petition in a timely 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 in the agenda packet, supplemental/supporting documents must be received by 5:00 pm, November 20, 2019.

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.

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.

From: San Francisco City Attorney

Dear Complainant,

We are writing concerning File No. 19089, which is currently scheduled for hearing before the full Task Force on December 4, 2019. Unfortunately, the person from our office who is most well-suited to address this complaint, John Cote, is out of the office and will not return on December 5, due to a previously-scheduled family vacation. We would like to request a continuance so that Mr. Cote can participate. This is the first continuance that we have requested on this complaint.

Please let us know if you would agree to this request. Based on Task Force Rule 8(b), it is our understanding that the Task Force would automatically grant the continuance if you were to agree to it. If you do not agree, we understand Rule 8(b) to state that the Task Force could authorize a continuance by a simple majority vote of the members present.

Thank you.

Please send replies to cityattorney@sfcityatty.org<mailto:cityattorney@sfcityatty.org>
Sincerely,

[cid:image002.jpg@01D5A151.16E90310]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

Dear Complainant,

My apologies - I made a typo in the email below, that is now corrected in bold.

Thank you,

[cid:image003.jpg@01D5A154.36D967C0]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: Anonymous Person

The email system on MuckRock doesn't show prior emails or formatting - can you send just the correct version?

From: Office of the Mayor

Hello, the corrected version is as follows:

Dear Complainant,

We are writing concerning File No. 19089, which is currently scheduled for hearing before the full Task Force on December 4, 2019. Unfortunately, the person from our office who is most well-suited to address this complaint, John Cote, is out of the office and will not return until December 5, due to a previously-scheduled family vacation. We would like to request a continuance so that Mr. Cote can participate. This is the first continuance that we have requested on this complaint.

Please let us know if you would agree to this request. Based on Task Force Rule 8(b), it is our understanding that the Task Force would automatically grant the continuance if you were to agree to it. If you do not agree, we understand Rule 8(b) to state that the Task Force could authorize a continuance by a simple majority vote of the members present.

Thank you.

Please send replies to cityattorney@sfcityatty.org<mailto:cityattorney@sfcityatty.org>
Sincerely,

[cid:image002.jpg@01D5A36C.D4CFA0B0]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: Office of the Mayor

Dear SOTF Parties:

The agenda and packet for the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force 12/4/19 - 4:00 p.m. meeting is online at the following link:

https://sfgov.org/sunshine/sites/default/files/sotf_120419_agenda.pdf

The packet material is linked to each item listed on the agenda mark with an "attachment". Click anywhere on the title of the item to open the link to the pdf of the packet material in question.

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: Office of the Mayor

Via E-mail Only to SOTF@sfgov.org

Honorable Members of the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force
1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, Room 244

San Francisco, CA 94102

Re: File No. 19132, Anonymous (c/o requests@muckrock.com) v. Department of Emergency Management and Mary Ellen Carroll

Dear Honorable Members of the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force ("SOTF"):

We write in response to Complaint No. 19132, filed by Anonymous on December 16, 2019, and received by the Department of Emergency Management on December 19, 2019. Anonymous alleges that Executive Director Mary Ellen Carroll and the Department of Emergency Management (DEM) violated Sections 67.21 and 67.25 of the Sunshine Ordinance (Admin. Code § 67.25), for failing to respond to an Immediate Disclosure Request dated December 7, 2019 ("IDR"), in a timely and/or complete manner.

The Task Force should dismiss this complaint.

After a thorough search, DEM has found no record of the IDR and has determined that DEM did not receive the IDR. DEM did receive a December 14, 2019 email in DEM's Outlook junk mail folder, which referenced the IDR.

Background

  • DEM Response - Complaint #19132 - Anonymous v. DEM MEC - final

  • 2020.01.07 - DEM Response to Anonymous - DEM Director Calendar - final

  • 01.07.2020 - IDR - Muckrock - DEM Calendar - responsive records

From: Anonymous Person

Mayor Breed, Hank Heckel, and Office of the Mayor,

I have not forgotten about the Mayor's refusal to comply in 19047.
All excuses are gone now.

If you willfully violate the SOTF orders and have not provided .ICS files by close of business January 29, or if you continue to attempt to mislead or to evade your responsibilities through word-games, you will be named in further filings. Consult your IT staff, consult DT, consult whoever you want, and provide me the .ICS files (redact the portions you want to redact), so we can finally put an end to this. Remember 67.26 allows you to redact by 'deletion' not just 'masking'. If masking is difficult in an .ICS file, then you must delete.

You are not above the law. It is high-time for the City to learn how to produce modern electronic records.

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.

(For unknown reasons, DEM decided to email their response to a different complaint to this email address. You'll just have to ignore that.)

Anonymous

From: Office of the Mayor

Anonymous,

We are reviewing this request in light of your follow-up and will respond further in due course.
Regards,

Hank Heckel
Compliance Officer
Office of the Mayor
City and County of San Francisco

From: Anonymous Person

It is now past January 29 CoB and your office has failed to provide even a single redacted ICS file in case 19047.
And we now know by your provision of parts of these files in other requests that these are, in even in your Office's own view, at least partially disclosable public records. Therefore you are now willfully and intentionally withholding public information.

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.

From: Anonymous Person

SOTF,

In SOTF 19047, Mayor Breed, Hank Heckel, and the Office of the Mayor refuse to comply. Not a single 19047 ICS file was ever produced.

We know for certain that Respondents have the ability to produce calendar metadata, since they did so partially in a single record in another request from me. They have thus implicitly admitted that at least certain timestamps are disclosable public information, and their continued refusal to provide any part of the ICS files in this case 19047 is inexcusable, willful, and intentional withholding of disclosable public information that they themselves implicitly admit is disclosable.

Five days after Oct. 24, 2019 is long overdue ("If the custodian refuses or fails to comply with any such order within 5 days, the Sunshine Task Force shall notify the district attorney or the attorney general who may take whatever measures she or he deems necessary to insure compliance with the provisions of this ordinance." SFAC 67.21(e))

I know from redacting ICS files (in discussions with DT), that easily generating an ICS file takes a few seconds (as your Task Force member themselves demonstrated on Oct. 2, 2019) and that a single ICS file can have its exempt portions deleted in between a few seconds to a few minutes maximum.

Respondents do not understand that they must comply with your Task Force even when they disagree - that's what the Task Force is for. They reject the Sunshine Ordinance's basic premise: "The people do not cede to [government] entities the right to decide what the people should know about the operations of local government." (SFAC 67.1(b))

Please schedule this hearing at Compliance committee at your earliest possible convenience and include the attached document. I also intend to take your findings at committee and the underlying order to be directly enforced to Superior Court pursuant to SFAC 67.35(d).

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.

Anonymous

From: Office of the Mayor

Dear SOTF Parties:

Attached in PDF format is the signed Order of Determination for file no. 19089. It has also been published on the Sunshine Task Force website.

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.

Files

pages

Close
Warning An exclamation point.

There are too many files to display on the request page. See all files.