Corrected Productions in SOTF 19091 Anonymous v Mayor London Breed, et al. (San Francisco)

twitter.com/journo_anon filed this request with the Office of the Mayor of San Francisco, CA.
Est. Completion None
Status
Fix Required
Tags

Communications

From: twitter.com/journo_anon

Mayor London Breed, Sean Elsbernd, Andres Power, Andrea Bruss, Marjan Philhour, Jeff Cretan, Sophia Kittler, Hank Heckel, Office of Mayor:

Please perform all corrected productions, whether voluntarily or as ordered by the Task Force or any court of competent jurisdiction, on this new email address re: SOTF 19091 Anonymous v Mayor London Breed, Sean Elsbernd, Andres Power, Andrea Bruss, Marjan Philhour, Jeff Cretan, Sophia Kittler, Hank Heckel, Office of Mayor.

This is NOT a new records request. Our requests from July 2, 2019 have never been lawfully produced. All timeliness requirements continue to run from July 2, 2019.
I am preparing this new email address as I expect to win on all counts in SOTF 19091 Anonymous v Mayor London Breed, et al and you may wish to start production prior to your 5-day timer. Any failures to produce records lawfully after SOTF formally finds you in violation (and thus eliminates any purported misconception your office holds of the law) OR any failure to produce all records correctly within 5 business days of a published Order will result in allegations of willful violation, which constitute official misconduct, before the Ethics Commission and/or CPRA petitions for writ of mandate or direct enforcement of SOTF orders, before Superior Court.

Every single withholding of non-email-header information (including but not limited to blacked out text/images, lack of color in any record, URLs, attachments, inline images cropped for no reason, etc) must be either produced OR keyed by footnote or other clear reference to a SFAC 67.27 written justification. On Jan 21, we will further prove to the SOTF that you possessed the tool that does this (Acrobat PDFMaker) correctly on July 25, 2019, because you produced one of out of all the sets of records correctly in your original response, though we do not concede that a lack of tools ever excuses non-compliance. If you are not aware, Acrobat also has a built-in feature to key redactions.

Unless you publicly publish a binding full admission and consent letter signed by Mayor Breed *and* correct all productions, we will maintain all allegations and pursue all enforcement orders (i.e. if you solely correct the productions, we will still pursue enforcement; you do not get to wait half a year to follow the law).

The Mayor's Office will follow the entire Sunshine Ordinance, CPRA, and California Constitution, for every record, every request, every requestor, every time.

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). Do not produce fee-based copies of records; instead provide in person inspection of those records. 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 public records.

Sincerely,

Anonymous (in SOTF 19091)

From: twitter.com/journo_anon

Before I send my letter I want to make sure I have my facts right:
- Last night Respondents sent new 67.26 justifications for every record set except Power 2 and Heckel 1, which had no redactions.
- Last night Respondents also sent a new Heckel 2 recordset - is there a reason for that?
- Do Respondents wish to produce any more attachments pursuant to the Sup of Records Oct 10 response? Do they believe the currently cited justifications fully cover all deleted attachments?

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). Do not produce fee-based copies of records; instead provide in person inspection of those records. 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 public records.

From: twitter.com/journo_anon

I may not have time later so I'm replying with the attached letter.

If needed I may issue subsequent replies.

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). Do not produce fee-based copies of records; instead provide in person inspection of those records. 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 public records.

--Anonymous

  • 2020011720-20SOTF201909120-20Anonymous20v20Breed2C20et20al.pdf

From: Office of the Mayor

Anonymous,

This responds to your inquiry below regarding our supplementation to this underlying records request.

* Yes, we have sent new justifications for all records except Power 2 and Heckel 1, which had no redactions.
* We produced a new version of Heckel 2 because I noticed a privacy redaction for contact info was missing so I added it and produced a new version. It is in all other respects the same.
* There are attachments we have not intentionally withheld and I will produce them today.

Also, to respond to the letter you just sent to SOTF, we were not claiming that all the redactions cited applied to each batch of records, so we never "over-justified". As we have now corrected, the original justifications were a list of all the redactions appearing across all responsive productions. The newly disclosed specifically correlated justifications do not change the original justification intended for each withholding.
Regards,

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

From: twitter.com/journo_anon

Thank you.

That letter was sent to you and not SOTF. (To be clear, that list of 4 justifications was originally included in each of your subsequent letters releasing each batch. You also explicitly stated in other batches that the add'l justifications were in addition to the original 4. However, I will add your current explanation of why you believe you did not over-redact into my letter, before I send the letter to SOTF.)

Do you wish to retract the original Heckel 2, and request that I request MuckRock delete the original versions of Heckel 2?
Note that Heckel 2 may have been introduced into all sorts of SOTF agenda packets, Sup of Records exhibits, cached around the web, etc. so it may be a bit late for that.

Please produce every single attachment in 19091, and if you do not produce the attachment, please indicate which specific justification you are using. And if you redact it, do the proper 67.26 procedure for the redactions.

If you wish to do all of the above, produce the PDFs as I clearly know that your office knows how to do (feel free to for now use the Adobe feature that strips all headers and metadata since that is in SOTF 20006), and provide all the full images with color, the URLs, the text, etc, and I am satisfied with that, the hearing on Tuesday will be more streamlined. (However, my prior position that I must either get a violation OD issued by SOTF or a signed consent letter from the Mayor stands. What you would instead be avoiding is the part of the OD that requires further disclosures and supervision by the Compliance committee to see if they need to consider willful violation.)

From: twitter.com/journo_anon

CORRECTED:

Thank you.

That letter was sent to you and not SOTF. (To be clear, that list of 4 justifications was originally included in each of your subsequent letters releasing each batch. You also explicitly stated in other batches that the add'l justifications were in addition to the original 4. However, I will add your current explanation of why you believe you did not over-redact into my letter, before I send the letter to SOTF.)

Do you wish to retract the original Heckel 2, and request that I request MuckRock delete the original versions of Heckel 2?
Note that Heckel 2 may have been introduced into all sorts of SOTF agenda packets, Supervisor of Records exhibits, cached around the web, etc. so it may be a bit late for that.

Please produce every single attachment in 19091, and if you do not produce the attachment, please indicate which specific justification you are using. And if you redact it, do the proper 67.26 procedure for the redactions.

If you wish to do all of the above, produce the PDFs as I clearly know that your office knows how to do (feel free to for now use the Adobe feature that strips all headers and metadata since that is in SOTF 20006), and provide all the full images with color, the URLs, the text, etc, and I am satisfied with that, the hearing on Tuesday will be more streamlined. (However, my prior position that I must either get a violation OD issued by SOTF or a signed consent letter from the Mayor stands. What you would instead be avoiding is the part of the OD that requires further disclosures and supervision by the Compliance committee to see if they need to consider willful violation.)

There are also what I believe to be mis-citations of the law in the City's responses, which I will send you a letter about shortly.

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). Do not produce fee-based copies of records; instead provide in person inspection of those records. 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 public records.

From: Office of the Mayor

Anonymous,

Yes, please retract Heckel 2 from Muckrock for the reasons stated.

We have completed our production of attachments and redaction justifications.

We believe we have complied with the requirements associated with your request and will explain the steps we have taken to do so at the hearing. If you wish to dismiss the complaint and forego the hearing based on agreement on any additional elements you would like resolved we can discuss that.
Regards,

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

From: twitter.com/journo_anon

I've requested that muckrock delete heckel 2 and the scan file discussed with DT. As I said earlier where else heckel 2s content might be is not something I can do anything.

You will receive an updated letter tonight.

From: twitter.com/journo_anon

Letter attached. We always remain open to the consent letter signed by the Mayor as previously described.

Anonymous

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). Do not produce fee-based copies of records; instead provide in person inspection of those records. 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 public records.

From: twitter.com/journo_anon

Correction - Letter attached. We always remain open to the consent letter signed by the Mayor as previously described.

Anonymous

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). Do not produce fee-based copies of records; instead provide in person inspection of those records. 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 public records.

From: twitter.com/journo_anon

Alright, well the City got a few weeks' reprieve in this case.

Given that even metadata is now disclosable, I am highly doubtful SOTF is going to allow the type of production (even ignoring metadata) your office did in this case, which was a much lower bar than metadata.

We know for certain you can produce PDFs properly, in full color, with all text, hyperlinks, and images etc.
It is the City's option: if you fix the production to be truly minimally withheld (for non-metadata), the City can get just the OD for past violations and avoid going to Compliance to have to produce more in the future. Your call.

--Anonymous

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). Do not produce fee-based copies of records; instead provide in person inspection of those records. 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 public records.

From: Office of the Mayor

Anonymous,

We are continuing to review the open items you reference and will supplement our production as appropriate.
Regards,

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

From: twitter.com/journo_anon

If you complete production of everything I seek and admit, *without excuses or caveat*, in writing to the SOTF prior to the agenda deadline, that Respondents violated 67.26 for non-minimal withholding and not keying redactions by footnote or clear reference to justifications, and 67.21(b) for providing an incomplete response regarding not providing all the attachments, I agree to waive the requirement that Respondents' representative (you) must be present on Feb 5, and I will also agree to seek solely the violation sections mentioned in the prior sentence during the hearing, and no other sections. (Frankly I have no idea whether you have other cases on Feb 5 or care about not showing up.)

Of course, SOTF can do whatever it wants to and sometimes goes for different or more violations than I ask for, and I have no idea whether SOTF would waive its own demand for you to be present, even if I am willing to waive it.

As always, the consent letter as previously described and signed by the Mayor remains an option to withdraw the complaint altogether.

--Anonymous

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). Do not produce fee-based copies of records; instead provide in person inspection of those records. 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 public records.

From: twitter.com/journo_anon

Mayor London Breed, Sean Elsbernd, Andres Power, Andrea Bruss, Marjan Philhour, Jeff Cretan, Sophia Kittler, Hank Heckel, Office of Mayor:

Do you wish to produce anything else for the 19091 agenda deadline today?

--Anonymous

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). Do not produce fee-based copies of records; instead provide in person inspection of those records. 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 public records.

From: twitter.com/journo_anon

Mayor London Breed, Sean Elsbernd, Andres Power, Andrea Bruss, Marjan Philhour, Jeff Cretan, Sophia Kittler, Hank Heckel, Office of Mayor:

If you will be producing anything else or want to compromise I need to know by 3:45pm today. I will be submitting my final updated presentation otherwise.

--Anonymous

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). Do not produce fee-based copies of records; instead provide in person inspection of those records. 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 public records.

From: Office of the Mayor

We will be updating our response.

From: twitter.com/journo_anon

Well I've submitted my side so I guess I'll find out when the agenda is posted.

From: twitter.com/journo_anon

1. Please add the attached signed letter from Mayor's Office also into File 19091.
2. Please add this email address into the Complainant email contact for 19091 so it will receive the OD when it gets emailed.

Anonymous

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). Do not produce fee-based copies of records; instead provide in person inspection of those records. 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 public records.

From: twitter.com/journo_anon

Attached document for file 20006 .

From: Office of the Mayor

Anonymous: Is this for case no. 20006 or 19091? Your subject line contradicts what you are saying in the body of your email. Thanks.

Cheryl Leger
Assistant Clerk, Board of Supervisors
Cheryl.Leger@sfgov.org<mailto:Cheryl.Leger@sfgov.org>
Tel: 415-554-7724
Fax: 415-554-5163
www.sfbos.org

[CustomerSatisfactionIcon]<http://www.sfbos.org/index.aspx?page=104> Click here<http://www.sfbos.org/index.aspx?page=104> to complete a Board of Supervisors Customer Service Satisfaction form.

The Legislative Research Center<http://www.sfbos.org/index.aspx?page=9681> provides 24-hour access to Board of Supervisors legislation, and archived matters since August 1998.

Disclosures: Personal information that is provided in communications to the Board of Supervisors is subject to disclosure under the California Public Records Act and the San Francisco Sunshine Ordinance. Personal information provided will not be redacted. Members of the public are not required to provide personal identifying information when they communicate with the Board of Supervisors and its committees. All written or oral communications that members of the public submit to the Clerk's Office regarding pending legislation or hearings will be made available to all members of the public for inspection and copying. The Clerk's Office does not redact any information from these submissions. This means that personal information-including names, phone numbers, addresses and similar information that a member of the public elects to submit to the Board and its committees-may appear on the Board of Supervisors website or in other public documents that members of the public may inspect or copy.

From: twitter.com/journo_anon

19091 was closed but 20006 was split from 19091 and is still open. So it is for 20006.

Files

pages

Close