Custodian of Records Working Group - Immediate Disclosure Request

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

SOTF 19091

Est. Completion None
Status
Partially Completed

Communications

From: Anonymous Person

Dear Office of the Mayor ,

This is a new Immediate Disclosure Request under the San Francisco Sunshine Ordinance, made before start of business August 22, 2019.

** Please redact your responses correctly! This is a public mailbox, and all of your responses (including emails, attachments, file shares, and the disclosed records) may be automatically and instantly available to the general public on the MuckRock.com service used to issue this request (though I am not a MuckRock representative). Once you send them to us, there's no going back. **

The audio record of the August 7 SOTF meeting appears to reference a "Custodian of Records Working Group" (aka "Custodian Working Group", called the "Group" below) of public employees attempting to, among other things, lobby (in a colloquial sense), via a letter, the SOTF to impose certain suggestions or restrictions on the behavior of the public. Perhaps my impression is incorrect; I would like to know more.

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

1. IMMEDIATE DISCLOSURE REQUEST: all agendas (draft or final) of meetings of the Group
2. IMMEDIATE DISCLOSURE REQUEST: all minutes (draft or final) of meetings of the Group
3. IMMEDIATE DISCLOSURE REQUEST: all listings of the membership/roster of the Group
4. regular request: all supporting documentation used at meetings of the Group
5. IMMEDIATE DISCLOSURE REQUEST: all records showing any budget allocations or other financial support given to the Group
6. regular request: all records that would demonstrate the public monies being used to support the activities of the Group (including showing the time spent by public employees performing Group work, for example calendar/schedule items showing when the meetings took place and who attended). Ms. Blackman said [in the Aug 7 SOTF audio record] that the signers spent "quite a lot of time" was spent writing this letter. Provide all records showing what public employee work time was spent writing this letter.
7. IMMEDIATE DISCLOSURE REQUEST: all records related to the attempt to lobby the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force to change their rules or procedures, including but not limited to the letter discussed at the SOTF Aug 7 meeting. Including a copy of the letter and all drafts or other versions of this letter.
8. regular request: all correspondence between your Compliance Officer and/or Custodian of Records and/or Public Records Manager and the Group as an entity
9. regular request: all correspondence between your Compliance Officer and/or Custodian of Records and/or Public Records Manager and any of { David Steinberg, Sue Blackman, Hank Heckel, Caroline Celaya, Marianne Mazzucco-Thompson } since Jan. 1, 2019.
10. regular request: Ms. Celaya stated [in the Aug 7 SOTF audio record] that certain best practices have been generated. Provide all policies/best practices written by the Group.

We remind you of your obligations to provide electronic records in any format we request them in, as long as either you hold them in that format, the format is available to you, or the format is easy to generate (Admin Code 67.21(l)). Therefore, calendars exported in the .ics, iCalendar, or vCard formats ("A") and emails exported in the .eml or .msg formats ("B") with all non-exempt headers, metadata, attachments, etc. are our desired formats. Such formats are easily exportable from Google Calendar/Gmail, Microsoft Outlook, Microsoft Exchange or other common calendaring/email systems. However, if you choose to convert electronic 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 requests 1 and 2), which contains many detailed headers beyond the ones generally printed out. If you 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 67.21, 67.26, 67.27, Govt Code 6253(a), 6253.9, and/or 6255, and we may challenge your decision. We *do not* waive the requirement of 67.21(l) discussed above, and are merely instructing you to preserve information even if you provide to us the undesirable PDF format.

For word processing documents, either .docx or .pdf formats are fine. For physical items, scanning to PDF format is acceptable.

For this request, we are asking for a City of San Jose v Superior Court (2017) search be performed of the Compliance Officer/Custodian of Records/Public Records Manager and all other members of your department's staff who are a member of or have ever attended the Group, such that each such employee either provide all records responsive to this request present on their personal accounts/devices/property (solely to the extent the record or portion thereof relates to the public's business), or provide a declaration/affidavit that no such records exist. All such affidavits/declarations are also requested as responsive records to this request. Please handle the government account record search as an immediate disclosure search, and the personal search under regular timelines.

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

Good evening Mr. Heckel,

Earlier today you replied to requests@muckrock.com with records responsive to this request instead. Please send that response to this email address requests@muckrock.com instead so it is catalogued correctly.

Just a note about muckrock.com email addresses - they are just like hotmail.com or gmail.com. We're customers of MuckRock using their system, we don't speak for MuckRock News or MuckRock Foundation, just like hotmail.com users don't speak for Microsoft. Furthermore, while in this specific case I am the requestor in both requests, there's really no way to know that in general, and sending to the wrong muckrock.com email address could end up sending the records to the wrong person.

Re: the content of your response:
I intend to dispute your provision of the emails in an image PDF format. You've already heard my argument for .msg format and metadata on Aug. 20 at SOTF, so I won't repeat it here.
In this specific request, however, my case appears even stronger. Your Custodian of Records peer in DPW, David Steinberg, published their department's records of hundreds of similar Custodian Working Group emails in .msg format, many with headers, online: https://sanfrancisco.nextrequest.com/requests/19-3455 and https://sanfrancisco.nextrequest.com/requests/19-3456 . Here is an example of a email with headers: https://sanfrancisco.nextrequest.com/documents/1669341/
I was also pleasantly surprised to learn the city has been providing .msg format native emails with headers for years: https://sanfrancisco.nextrequest.com/documents?filter=.msg

Have a good weekend,
Anonymous

From: Office of the Mayor

Dear Anonymous,

Per your email noting that the response below was not sent to the preferred address, please see the forwarded response and records, addressed to the email you specified.
Regards,

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

From: Anonymous Person

Thanks!

From: Office of the Mayor

Dear Anonymous,
This further responds to your request below regarding the Custodians Working Group. Please see attached additional responsive records located in the Office of the Mayor.

The responsive information attached 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.

This completes our response to this request. Please note that we are responding on behalf of the Mayor's Office only and not on behalf of other City departments. Please let me know if you have any questions.
Regards,

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

From: Anonymous Person

Thank you. All allegations in our complaint SOTF 19091 remain live with this response as well.

From: Anonymous Person

** Please redact your responses correctly! This is a public mailbox, and all of your responses (including emails, attachments, file shares, and the disclosed records) may be automatically and instantly available to the general public on the MuckRock.com service used to issue this request (though I am not a MuckRock representative). Once you send them to us, there's no going back. **

This is a further, additional immediate disclosure request for:

1. All communications (between and including Aug 22, 2019 and Sept 8, 2019) between Hank Heckel and David Steinberg, or Hank Heckel and Jeremy Spitz. PDF, MSG, or EML formats are acceptable, however printing and scanning is not acceptable. Note that any communication that has both Heckel and either of the other DPW employees is requested, on personal or business accounts, in every form. Since these are your emails Mr. Heckel, the request is most certainly 'readily answerable' and must be immediately provided.

I believe these records exist because Rachel Gordon provided the following on-the-record comment for DPW in response to a request for comment re: a portion of my Anonymous Public Records Audit of the City and County of San Francisco:

> Our custodian public records responded to the Aug. 22 anonymous request the day it was received. After releasing the records in the native format, as requested, the custodian of public records was made aware that Anonymous had submitted identical requests to several other City departments and that security concerns had been raised about releasing some records in the specific formats requested.

> Regarding the subsequent request, after conferring with the Mayor’s Office regarding the potential security risks posed by releasing the records in native format, Public Works had IT staff convert the emails to PDF form, as is the department’s standard practice. Our office generally does not produce metadata. Producing documents with metadata can subject the City to security risks and can lead to the inadvertent disclosure of privileged information.

Thanks,
Anonymous

From: Anonymous Person

** Please redact your responses correctly! This is a public mailbox, and all of your responses (including emails, attachments, file shares, and the disclosed records) may be automatically and instantly available to the general public on the MuckRock.com service used to issue this request (though I am not a MuckRock representative). Once you send them to us, there's no going back. **

This is a further, additional immediate disclosure request for:

1. All communications (between and including Aug 22, 2019 and Sept 8, 2019) between Hank Heckel and David Steinberg, or Hank Heckel and Jeremy Spitz. PDF, MSG, or EML formats are acceptable, however printing and scanning is not acceptable. Note that any communication that has both Heckel and either of the other DPW employees is requested, on personal or business accounts, in every form. Since these are your emails Mr. Heckel, the request is most certainly 'readily answerable' and must be immediately provided.

I believe these records exist because Rachel Gordon provided the following on-the-record comment for DPW in response to a request for comment re: a portion of my Anonymous Public Records Audit of the City and County of San Francisco:

> Our custodian public records responded to the Aug. 22 anonymous request the day it was received. After releasing the records in the native format, as requested, the custodian of public records was made aware that Anonymous had submitted identical requests to several other City departments and that security concerns had been raised about releasing some records in the specific formats requested.

> Regarding the subsequent request, after conferring with the Mayor’s Office regarding the potential security risks posed by releasing the records in native format, Public Works had IT staff convert the emails to PDF form, as is the department’s standard practice. Our office generally does not produce metadata. Producing documents with metadata can subject the City to security risks and can lead to the inadvertent disclosure of privileged information.

Thanks,
Anonymous

From: Office of the Mayor

Dear Anonymous,

I received your records request below and have conducted a search for responsive records. Please see attached the responsive records located.

Please note that certain documents requested constitute privileged communications with attorneys and were accordingly withheld pursuant to the attorney/client privilege. See Gov't Code § 6254(k); Evidence Code § 954; Admin. Code § 67.21(k).

Regards,

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

October 8, 2019

This is a follow up to request number SOTF 19091:

** Please redact your responses correctly! This is a public mailbox, and all of your responses (including emails, attachments, file shares, and the disclosed records) may be automatically and instantly available to the general public on the MuckRock.com service used to issue this request (though I am not a MuckRock representative). Once you send them to us, there's no going back. **

This is a further, additional immediate disclosure request for:

1. All communications (between and including Aug 22, 2019 and Sept 8, 2019) between Hank Heckel and David Steinberg, or Hank Heckel and Jeremy Spitz. PDF, MSG, or EML formats are acceptable, however printing and scanning is not acceptable. Note that any communication that has both Heckel and either of the other DPW employees is requested, on personal or business accounts, in every form. Since these are your emails Mr. Heckel, the request is most certainly 'readily answerable' and must be immediately provided.

I believe these records exist because Rachel Gordon provided the following on-the-record comment for DPW in response to a request for comment re: a portion of my Anonymous Public Records Audit of the City and County of San Francisco:

> Our custodian public records responded to the Aug. 22 anonymous request the day it was received. After releasing the records in the native format, as requested, the custodian of public records was made aware that Anonymous had submitted identical requests to several other City departments and that security concerns had been raised about releasing some records in the specific formats requested.

> Regarding the subsequent request, after conferring with the Mayor's Office regarding the potential security risks posed by releasing the records in native format, Public Works had IT staff convert the emails to PDF form, as is the department's standard practice. Our office generally does not produce metadata. Producing documents with metadata can subject the City to security risks and can lead to the inadvertent disclosure of privileged information.

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/?url_auth_token=AAAxJKbo2Vje5U7JJiIkNXfIXyg%3A1iI1hE%3Ar1bgenaB3Tz_XjGKUTygfzVmKlY&next=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.muckrock.com%2Faccounts%2Flogin%2F%3Fnext%3D%252Faccounts%252Fagency_login%252Foffice-of-the-mayor-3891%252Fcustodian-of-records-working-group-immediate-disclosure-request-79193%252F%253Femail%253Dmayorsunshinerequests%252540sfgov.org
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 79193
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. 18, 2019:
Subject: RE: California Public Records Act Request: Custodian of Records Working Group - Immediate Disclosure Request
Thank you. All allegations in our complaint SOTF 19091 remain live with this response as well.
---

On Sept. 17, 2019:
Subject: FW: Request re Custodians Working Group
Dear Anonymous,
This further responds to your request below regarding the Custodians Working Group. Please see attached additional responsive records located in the Office of the Mayor.

The responsive information attached 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.

This completes our response to this request. Please note that we are responding on behalf of the Mayor's Office only and not on behalf of other City departments. Please let me know if you have any questions.
Regards,

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

On Aug. 26, 2019:
Subject: RE: California Public Records Act Request: Custodian of Records Working Group - Immediate Disclosure Request
Thanks!
---

On Aug. 26, 2019:
Subject: FW: Request re Custodians Working Group
Dear Anonymous,

Per your email noting that the response below was not sent to the preferred address, please see the forwarded response and records, addressed to the email you specified.
Regards,

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

On Aug. 23, 2019:
Subject: RE: California Public Records Act Request: Custodian of Records Working Group - Immediate Disclosure Request
Good evening Mr. Heckel,

Earlier today you replied to requests@muckrock.com<mailto:requests@muckrock.com> with records responsive to this request instead. Please send that response to this email address requests@muckrock.com<mailto:requests@muckrock.com> instead so it is catalogued correctly.

Just a note about muckrock.com email addresses - they are just like hotmail.com or gmail.com. We're customers of MuckRock using their system, we don't speak for MuckRock News or MuckRock Foundation, just like hotmail.com users don't speak for Microsoft. Furthermore, while in this specific case I am the requestor in both requests, there's really no way to know that in general, and sending to the wrong muckrock.com email address could end up sending the records to the wrong person.

Re: the content of your response:
I intend to dispute your provision of the emails in an image PDF format. You've already heard my argument for .msg format and metadata on Aug. 20 at SOTF, so I won't repeat it here.
In this specific request, however, my case appears even stronger. Your Custodian of Records peer in DPW, David Steinberg, published their department's records of hundreds of similar Custodian Working Group emails in .msg format, many with headers, online: https://sanfrancisco.nextrequest.com/requests/19-3455 and https://sanfrancisco.nextrequest.com/requests/19-3456 . Here is an example of a email with headers: https://sanfrancisco.nextrequest.com/documents/1669341/
I was also pleasantly surprised to learn the city has been providing .msg format native emails with headers for years: https://sanfrancisco.nextrequest.com/documents?filter=.msg

Have a good weekend,
Anonymous

---

On Aug. 22, 2019:
Subject: California Public Records Act Request: Custodian of Records Working Group - Immediate Disclosure Request
Dear Office of the Mayor ,

This is a new Immediate Disclosure Request under the San Francisco Sunshine Ordinance, made before start of business August 22, 2019.

** Please redact your responses correctly! This is a public mailbox, and all of your responses (including emails, attachments, file shares, and the disclosed records) may be automatically and instantly available to the general public on the MuckRock.com service used to issue this request (though I am not a MuckRock representative). Once you send them to us, there's no going back. **

The audio record of the August 7 SOTF meeting appears to reference a "Custodian of Records Working Group" (aka "Custodian Working Group", called the "Group" below) of public employees attempting to, among other things, lobby (in a colloquial sense), via a letter, the SOTF to impose certain suggestions or restrictions on the behavior of the public. Perhaps my impression is incorrect; I would like to know more.

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

1. IMMEDIATE DISCLOSURE REQUEST: all agendas (draft or final) of meetings of the Group
2. IMMEDIATE DISCLOSURE REQUEST: all minutes (draft or final) of meetings of the Group
3. IMMEDIATE DISCLOSURE REQUEST: all listings of the membership/roster of the Group
4. regular request: all supporting documentation used at meetings of the Group
5. IMMEDIATE DISCLOSURE REQUEST: all records showing any budget allocations or other financial support given to the Group
6. regular request: all records that would demonstrate the public monies being used to support the activities of the Group (including showing the time spent by public employees performing Group work, for example calendar/schedule items showing when the meetings took place and who attended). Ms. Blackman said [in the Aug 7 SOTF audio record] that the signers spent "quite a lot of time" was spent writing this letter. Provide all records showing what public employee work time was spent writing this letter.
7. IMMEDIATE DISCLOSURE REQUEST: all records related to the attempt to lobby the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force to change their rules or procedures, including but not limited to the letter discussed at the SOTF Aug 7 meeting. Including a copy of the letter and all drafts or other versions of this letter.
8. regular request: all correspondence between your Compliance Officer and/or Custodian of Records and/or Public Records Manager and the Group as an entity
9. regular request: all correspondence between your Compliance Officer and/or Custodian of Records and/or Public Records Manager and any of { David Steinberg, Sue Blackman, Hank Heckel, Caroline Celaya, Marianne Mazzucco-Thompson } since Jan. 1, 2019.
10. regular request: Ms. Celaya stated [in the Aug 7 SOTF audio record] that certain best practices have been generated. Provide all policies/best practices written by the Group.

We remind you of your obligations to provide electronic records in any format we request them in, as long as either you hold them in that format, the format is available to you, or the format is easy to generate (Admin Code 67.21(l)). Therefore, calendars exported in the .ics, iCalendar, or vCard formats ("A") and emails exported in the .eml or .msg formats ("B") with all non-exempt headers, metadata, attachments, etc. are our desired formats. Such formats are easily exportable from Google Calendar/Gmail, Microsoft Outlook, Microsoft Exchange or other common calendaring/email systems. However, if you choose to convert electronic 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 requests 1 and 2), which contains many detailed headers beyond the ones generally printed out. If you 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 67.21, 67.26, 67.27, Govt Code 6253(a), 6253.9, and/or 6255, and we may challenge your decision. We *do not* waive the requirement of 67.21(l) discussed above, and are merely instructing you to preserve information even if you provide to us the undesirable PDF format.

For word processing documents, either .docx or .pdf formats are fine. For physical items, scanning to PDF format is acceptable.

For this request, we are asking for a City of San Jose v Superior Court (2017) search be performed of the Compliance Officer/Custodian of Records/Public Records Manager and all other members of your department's staff who are a member of or have ever attended the Group, such that each such employee either provide all records responsive to this request present on their personal accounts/devices/property (solely to the extent the record or portion thereof relates to the public's business), or provide a declaration/affidavit that no such records exist. All such affidavits/declarations are also requested as responsive records to this request. Please handle the government account record search as an immediate disclosure search, and the personal search under regular timelines.

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/?url_auth_token=AAAxJKbo2Vje5U7JJiIkNXfIXyg%3A1iI1hE%3Ar1bgenaB3Tz_XjGKUTygfzVmKlY&next=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.muckrock.com%2Faccounts%2Flogin%2F%3Fnext%3D%252Faccounts%252Fagency_login%252Foffice-of-the-mayor-3891%252Fcustodian-of-records-working-group-immediate-disclosure-request-79193%252F%253Femail%253Dmayorsunshinerequests%252540sfgov.org
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 79193
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.

  • Responsive Records for Anonymous Request Steinberg and Spitz

From: Anonymous Person

** Note that ALL of your responses (including disclosed records and your email messages) 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). Please redact correctly.**

First, thank you for not printing and scanning the emails. This is not ideal, but it is a lot better.

Second, page 2 of that PDF is missing a subject line. Is this withheld and what is the justification?

Third, and most importantly:
The first page says "Automatic reply: MuckRock Requests" (I assume this is about my requests, and I will simply state as I always do: I do not represent MuckRock News or MuckRock Foundation, and I have no responsibility for other persons who use MuckRock.com to organize their requests either).
Ms. Gordon states that DPW conferred with "the Mayor's Office." This is presumably that thread.
As far as I know, the Mayor's Office is not the attorney for CCSF or DPW.
So I am not sure what could possibly be privileged here.
I understand you are an attorney (http://members.calbar.ca.gov/fal/Licensee/Detail/326795), though I am not aware that you are legal counsel for the City - I believe that is the City Attorney's role.

Please answer the following 6 requests under 67.22 release of oral public information, each of which should require less than 15 minutes of research.
- Does Hank Heckel serve as an attorney for Mayor London Breed in her individual or official capacities?
- Does Hank Heckel serve as an attorney for the City and County of San Francisco?
- Does Hank Heckel serve as an attorney for David Steinberg or Jeremy Spitz in their individual or city employee capacities?
- On what date did Hank Heckel begin serving as an attorney in any of the foregoing 3 questions?
- Does the Mayor's Office serve as an attorney for the City and County of San Francisco?
- Does the Mayor's Office serve as an attorney for the Department of Public Works?

Alternatively, if you wish not to respond in writing, please provide the official phone number of Mayor Breed or her delegate who must orally answer such questions under 67.22. At my leisure, I may make 6 separate phone calls, one for each question, which must be answered if each takes less than 15 minutes of research. These questions will be "on-the-record" and I may include your response in my report to be published later this year.

Fourth, this is an immediate disclosure request for messages between Hank Heckel and David Steinberg or Jeremy Spitz -- any electronic format that is not printed/scanned is sufficient. Unless the state bar link above is wrong, I assume you could not have served as an attorney for the City etc. before Aug. 23.

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

The "fourth" request is solely for communications between April 1, 2019 and Aug 22, 2019 (inclusive).

From: Office of the Mayor

Dear Anonymous,

This is in response to your request below. The privileged documents I was referring to were communications with attorneys in the City Attorney's Office which also happened to include me, Mr. Steinberg and/or Mr. Spitz. Those communications were made for purposes of soliciting or receiving those attorneys' legal advice. See Gov't Code § 6254(k); Evidence Code § 954; Admin. Code § 67.21(k).

Thus, the answers to your questions pursuant to 67.22 relating to this topic are "no".

Your purported immediate disclosure request was not properly made as it does not identify itself as such "across the top of the request and on the envelope, subject line, or cover sheet in which the request is transmitted" and neither does it pose a "simple, routine or otherwise readily answerable request" as it requires consultation with another City department due to your challenge to the privilege invoked. Admin. Code. 67.25(a). Accordingly, it will be treated as a regular request subject to the full period to respond and we reserve our right to invoke a further extension as needed. 67.25 (b); § 6253(c).

Have a good weekend and let us know if you have further questions.

Best Regards,

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

October 10, 2019

This is a follow up to request number SOTF 19091:

The "fourth" request is solely for communications between April 1, 2019 and Aug 22, 2019 (inclusive).

Filed via MuckRock.com
E-mail (Preferred): requests@muckrock.com<mailto:requests@muckrock.com>
Upload documents directly: https://accounts.muckrock.com/accounts/login/?url_auth_token=AAAxJKbo2Vje5U7JJiIkNXfIXyg%3A1iIlDI%3AjhZeCd68BSlLZDDEKG4Qw3ml8ms&next=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.muckrock.com%2Faccounts%2Flogin%2F%3Fnext%3D%252Faccounts%252Fagency_login%252Foffice-of-the-mayor-3891%252Fcustodian-of-records-working-group-immediate-disclosure-request-79193%252F%253Femail%253Dhank.heckel%252540sfgov.org
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 79193
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: Anonymous Person

Thank you for the answers.

Indeed you are correct, I did not properly file the fourth request as an IDR. Given that you do not represent the City/Mayor as an attorney and you are asserting privilege for other reasons, you may cancel the non-IDR request in whole.

Have a good weekend as well,
Anonymous

From: Office of the Mayor

Dear Anonymous,

Given my response to the inquiry below, I understood that you were canceling the non-IDR request as a whole. You conceded that the fourth item was not an IDR and I thought you were canceling it. Please let me know if this is not correct.
Regards,

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

From: Anonymous Person

You are correct. There's nothing more on this email address/thread until 19091 is ruled upon by SOTF.

Files

pages

Close