Future Calendars and Meetings - Immediate Disclosure Request

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

19103

Est. Completion None
Status
Fix Required
Tags

Communications

From: Anonymous Journalist

Office of the Mayor,

** 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). Redact your responses correctly - once you send them to us there is no going back. **

This is a new Immediate Disclosure Request under the San Francisco Sunshine Ordinance and the CPRA, made on October 4, 2019. This is also a 67.21(c) request for the statement of quantity, nature, and form (even if exempt!) for each of #1, 2, and 3, within 7 days without extension. For the quantity of #1, I would like the number of meetings, each of which is an item being requested.

Mr. Heckel, Compliance Officer for the Mayor, made an intriguing assertion at the full SOTF hearing for Case 19047. While the task force ruled against the Mayor for *prior* calendar records, Mr. Heckel appeared to argue that all future meetings of the Mayor are somehow completely secret (the SOTF did not rule on future meetings since they were not requested in 19047). I will be testing that purported claim of exemption. Note that it is implausible that there would be no prospective scheduling information for upcoming events the Mayor must attend to, even though Prop G requires no such calendar be kept. All calendars, whether Prop G or not, that your agency prepared, owned, used, or retained re: the public's business are public records -- as was also ruled at SOTF 19047 (see also, Sup. of Records response of Sept. 6).

I suspect your office may attempt to use Gov Code 6254(f). The entirety of the Mayor’s future schedule cannot possibly be confidential law enforcement investigatory records under GC 6254(f). This exemption does not even exist for the Mayor’s Office. The Mayor’s Office is not “the office of the Attorney General [or] the Department of Justice, the Office of Emergency Services [or] any state or local police agency” so the first clause re: security procedures does not apply. Furthermore a calendar cannot be “investigatory or security files compiled by any other state or local agency for correctional, law enforcement, or licensing purposes.” This would an absurd stretch of the words of the statute; every meeting is not "for correctional, law enforcement, or licensing purposes." Information regarding the security detail for the Mayor may potentially be lawfully withheld under 6254(f) - but there is a lot more to a calendar than a security detail, such as normal political and policy meetings. I don't care about the security detail, and you may exclude the security detail info from responsive records. If you believe certain parts of a meeting record are redactable under 6254(f) or otherwise you must only redact each minimal portion and cite each justification.

All records must be provided in rolling fashion.

Please read carefully the exact wording of my request as it is different than my prior ones. Please follow the Ordinance precisely as I am auditing your agency's public records regimen; as you are well aware, every violation of the Sunshine Ordinance will be appealed.

Please provide:
1. IMMEDIATE DISCLOSURE: an electronic copy of the Mayor's *prospective/expected* calendar or schedule, with all expected events/items, from Oct 21 to Oct 28, 2019 (inclusive). Calendar items must include (but are not limited to): the exact start and end time of the meeting, the location, the title, all invitees and whether they accepted or not, attachments, inline images, if they exist in the record. We are specifically requesting ALL calendar/scheduling items, individually, for the Mayor, whether the Mayor herself possesses them or her staff, whether they are labeled "Prop G" or not, and whether they are on a computer or in physical form (such as a diary, a physical calendar on a wall, etc.). You are welcome to print each item (not the summary view) directly to .PDF form in Outlook and redact them. Do not cutoff information like long text that does not fit on the screen - that would be unjustified withholding. In order to ensure immediacy of disclosure, in this and only this request, .ics format and headers are NOT specifically requested (though you are welcome to provide them if it can be provided immediately).

2. REGULAR DISCLOSURE: If the Mayor or any of the Mayor's staff uses any invitation/guestlist tracking systems on behalf of the Mayor (such as Outlook's invite mechanism OR regular emails), those items are included within the scope of this request #2. In order to ensure rapid disclosure, in this and only this request, particular formats and headers are NOT specifically requested (though you are welcome to provide them if it can be provided rapidly).

3. REGULAR DISCLOSURE: Furthermore, I request that a City of San Jose v Superior Court (2017) search be performed of the Mayor, her chief of staff (and deputy chiefs), and all personal/secretarial/administrative assistants, such that each such official either provide all records responsive to #1 that are 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 are also requested. In order to ensure rapid disclosure, in this and only this request, particular formats and headers are NOT specifically requested (though you are welcome to provide them if it can be provided rapidly).

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: Office of the Mayor

Dear Anonymous,

This responds in part to your request below received by the Office of the Mayor on October 4, 2019. Regarding Item 1, marked as an immediate disclosure request, the records you have sought regarding the Mayor's "prospective/expected" calendar or schedule for the dates of October 21 to October 28 are currently exempt from disclosure, at least pursuant to Cal. Gov. Code 6254(f). Pursuant to that section and contrary to your argument below, future events and meetings of the Mayor that are not public, necessarily provide "security procedures" information of a "local police agency" given the security assigned to the Mayor for such events and meetings.

Under that provision and a rule of reason analysis, it jeopardizes the safety and security of such meetings to reveal their details in advance. A meeting that has been publicly announced is available for disclosure. Similarly past meetings are recorded in the Prop G calendar and other scheduling documents, as you have seen from our other productions.

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

October 4, 2019

Office of the Mayor,

** 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). Redact your responses correctly - once you send them to us there is no going back. **

This is a new Immediate Disclosure Request under the San Francisco Sunshine Ordinance and the CPRA, made on October 4, 2019. This is also a 67.21(c) request for the statement of quantity, nature, and form (even if exempt!) for each of #1, 2, and 3, within 7 days without extension. For the quantity of #1, I would like the number of meetings, each of which is an item being requested.

Mr. Heckel, Compliance Officer for the Mayor, made an intriguing assertion at the full SOTF hearing for Case 19047. While the task force ruled against the Mayor for *prior* calendar records, Mr. Heckel appeared to argue that all future meetings of the Mayor are somehow completely secret (the SOTF did not rule on future meetings since they were not requested in 19047). I will be testing that purported claim of exemption. Note that it is implausible that there would be no prospective scheduling information for upcoming events the Mayor must attend to, even though Prop G requires no such calendar be kept. All calendars, whether Prop G or not, that your agency prepared, owned, used, or retained re: the public's business are public records -- as was also ruled at SOTF 19047 (see also, Sup. of Records response of Sept. 6).

I suspect your office may attempt to use Gov Code 6254(f). The entirety of the Mayor's future schedule cannot possibly be confidential law enforcement investigatory records under GC 6254(f). This exemption does not even exist for the Mayor's Office. The Mayor's Office is not "the office of the Attorney General [or] the Department of Justice, the Office of Emergency Services [or] any state or local police agency" so the first clause re: security procedures does not apply. Furthermore a calendar cannot be "investigatory or security files compiled by any other state or local agency for correctional, law enforcement, or licensing purposes." This would an absurd stretch of the words of the statute; every meeting is not "for correctional, law enforcement, or licensing purposes." Information regarding the security detail for the Mayor may potentially be lawfully withheld under 6254(f) - but there is a lot more to a calendar than a security detail, such as normal political and policy meetings. I don't care about the security detail, and you may exclude the security detail info from responsive records. If you believe certain parts of a meeting record are redactable under 6254(f) or otherwise you must only redact each minimal portion and cite each justification.

All records must be provided in rolling fashion.

Please read carefully the exact wording of my request as it is different than my prior ones. Please follow the Ordinance precisely as I am auditing your agency's public records regimen; as you are well aware, every violation of the Sunshine Ordinance will be appealed.

Please provide:
1. IMMEDIATE DISCLOSURE: an electronic copy of the Mayor's *prospective/expected* calendar or schedule, with all expected events/items, from Oct 21 to Oct 28, 2019 (inclusive). Calendar items must include (but are not limited to): the exact start and end time of the meeting, the location, the title, all invitees and whether they accepted or not, attachments, inline images, if they exist in the record. We are specifically requesting ALL calendar/scheduling items, individually, for the Mayor, whether the Mayor herself possesses them or her staff, whether they are labeled "Prop G" or not, and whether they are on a computer or in physical form (such as a diary, a physical calendar on a wall, etc.). You are welcome to print each item (not the summary view) directly to .PDF form in Outlook and redact them. Do not cutoff information like long text that does not fit on the screen - that would be unjustified withholding. In order to ensure immediacy of disclosure, in this and only this request, .ics format and headers are NOT specifically requested (though you are welcome to provide them if it can be provided immediately).

2. REGULAR DISCLOSURE: If the Mayor or any of the Mayor's staff uses any invitation/guestlist tracking systems on behalf of the Mayor (such as Outlook's invite mechanism OR regular emails), those items are included within the scope of this request #2. In order to ensure rapid disclosure, in this and only this request, particular formats and headers are NOT specifically requested (though you are welcome to provide them if it can be provided rapidly).

3. REGULAR DISCLOSURE: Furthermore, I request that a City of San Jose v Superior Court (2017) search be performed of the Mayor, her chief of staff (and deputy chiefs), and all personal/secretarial/administrative assistants, such that each such official either provide all records responsive to #1 that are 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 are also requested. In order to ensure rapid disclosure, in this and only this request, particular formats and headers are NOT specifically requested (though you are welcome to provide them if it can be provided rapidly).

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://www.muckrock.com/
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 81242
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/eJw1yksOwiAQANDTyJLMwABlwcZEr2HKryWVEsGaeHu78a1fdEpplupcno8SHYIwhBNbHQpPSsdMNvsYhQYfdLYkiTCCloYVJwAtApxfSAkc-d2CMjd1nSQaKSe8EPT0OtJ4D16PsPUWNh5aZd3V-dv6OPaxlj390_lHXtqHt778ALdZLjk]

From: Anonymous Journalist

** 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). Redact your responses correctly - once you send them to us there is no going back. **

I will of course appeal this. I have no interest in the security detail of the Mayor and you could merely redact that information.
I suspect the vast majority of meetings have in fact absolutely no such information given the non-Prop G calendars you have already turned over in the past.

I understand that you are an attorney, even if not the attorney for the Mayor -- your contention that regular political and policy meeting entities are as a whole "records of... security procedures.... of any state or local police agency" is completely inappropriate. No where does it say that records that "necessarily provide 'security procedures' information" are exempt - such a broad reading would exempt nearly all information about the Mayor since knowing where the Mayor was in the past also "provide[s]" information about her security detail. You have notably elided the "records of... security procedures" prefix of your citation.

These future meeting entries are not /in their entirety/ security procedures, and instead the non-exempt portions of these records tell us very important things about the priorities, communications, political and lobbying contacts of the Mayor, and that information is completely public.

Sincerely,
Anonymous

From: Anonymous Journalist

Task Force,

A new 67.21(e) petition/complaint is below. Please provide me a file number, and cc-me on the request for response to the Mayor.

Respondents: Office of Mayor, London Breed, Hank Heckel

Complainant: Anonymous (requests@muckrock.com)

Alleged Violations: SFAC 67.21, 67.26, 67.25

Original Request Date: Oct. 4, 2019

Complaint:

I made an IDR on Oct 4 to the Mayor for among other things: "an electronic copy of the Mayor's *prospective/expected* calendar or schedule, with all expected events/items, from Oct 21 to Oct 28, 2019 (inclusive)."
On Oct. 7, the Mayor's Office withheld all information whatsoever about future meeting entries from October 21 to 28, 2019.
They haven't even provided redacted information and have instead withheld in entirety all information.
(This has nothing to do with any metadata, headers, formats, etc.)

The Mayor's contention that regular political and policy meeting entries are as a whole "records of... security procedures.... of any state or local police agency" under Gov Code 6254(f) is completely inappropriate. No where does it say that records that "necessarily provide 'security procedures' information" (Heckel letter Oct. 7) are exempt - such a broad reading would exempt nearly all information about the Mayor since knowing where the Mayor was in the past also "provide[s]" information about her security detail. Heckel has notably elided the "*records of*... security procedures" prefix of his legal citation. Of course, the CA Supreme Court and Constitution require that we interpret laws that limit disclosure narrowly, and the Mayor's interpretation of 6254(f) is absurdly broad. Shall we make a state secret the Mayor's official physical business address because it would allow us to know that she has security protecting her at City Hall? This is nonsense.

These future meeting entries are not /in their entirety/ security procedures, and instead the non-exempt portions of these records tell us very important things about the priorities, communications, political and lobbying contacts of the Mayor, and that information is completely public. Which is of course why the Mayor hides and obfuscates it. I have no interest in the security detail of the Mayor and they could merely redact that information. I suspect the vast majority of meetings have in fact absolutely no such security detail information given the non-Prop G calendars the Mayor has previously turned over.

The evidence of request and response is in the email thread at the bottom of this complaint e-mail.

** 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). Redact your responses correctly - once you send them to us there is no going back. **

Thanks,

Anonymous

From: Anonymous Journalist

Supervisor of Records,

This is a new 67.21(d) petition. I as always expect a 10-day-or-earlier response, and there's no complex IT analysis required here.

I made an IDR on Oct 4 to the Mayor for among other things: "an electronic copy of the Mayor's *prospective/expected* calendar or schedule, with all expected events/items, from Oct 21 to Oct 28, 2019 (inclusive)."
On Oct. 7, the Mayor's Office withheld all information whatsoever about future meeting entries from October 21 to 28, 2019.
They haven't even provided redacted information and have instead withheld in entirety all information.
(This has nothing to do with any metadata, headers, formats, etc.)

The Mayor's contention that regular political and policy meeting entries are as a whole "records of... security procedures.... of any state or local police agency" under Gov Code 6254(f) is completely inappropriate. No where does it say that records that "necessarily provide 'security procedures' information" (Heckel letter Oct. 7) are exempt - such a broad reading would exempt nearly all information about the Mayor since knowing where the Mayor was in the past also "provide[s]" information about her security detail. Heckel has notably elided the "*records of*... security procedures" prefix of his legal citation. Of course, the CA Supreme Court and Constitution require that we interpret laws that limit disclosure narrowly, and the Mayor's interpretation of 6254(f) is absurdly broad. Shall we make a state secret the Mayor's official physical business address because it would allow us to know that she has security protecting her at City Hall? This is nonsense.

These future meeting entries are not /in their entirety/ security procedures, and instead the non-exempt portions of these records tell us very important things about the priorities, communications, political and lobbying contacts of the Mayor, and that information is completely public. Which is of course why the Mayor hides and obfuscates it. I have no interest in the security detail of the Mayor and they could merely redact that information. I suspect the vast majority of meetings have in fact absolutely no such security detail information given the non-Prop G calendars the Mayor has previously turned over.

The evidence of request and response is in the email thread at the bottom of this complaint e-mail.

Please provide all determinations and associated orders. There is no provision for you to refuse to provide a determination after I have made a 67.21(d) petition, regardless of what the Mayor does or does not do after this point.

** 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). Redact your responses correctly - once you send them to us there is no going back. **

Thanks,

Anonymous

From: Office of the Mayor

I am in receipt of the complaint and will process it shortly. File No. 19103 has tentatively been assigned to the complaint.

Victor Young
Assistant Clerk
Board of Supervisors
phone 415-554-7723 | fax 415-554-5163
victor.young@sfgov.org<mailto:victor.young@sfgov.org> | www.sfbos.org<http://www.sfbos.org>

From: Office of the Mayor

Dear Anonymous,

We maintain our position regarding the security procedures exemption for future meetings that have not been announced. As I noted regarding future public meetings, those may be available when announced. For instance, see the Mayor’s Press Calendar which may be found at https://sfmayor.org/events/calendar/month/2019-10. A copy of the entries for October is also attached. Note that this calendar was not yet populated at the time of your request.

Please let us know if you have further questions.
Regards,

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

From: Anonymous Journalist

** 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). Redact your responses correctly - once you send them to us there is no going back. **

The point is that your announcements should have no bearing on whether a calendar is exempt or not from disclosure. The mayor or her PR people does not get to choose for their own personal, political, or policy reasons when she does or does not release records. If you believed there was a security issue, such exemption could not have changed between yesterday and today.

Regardless, now that you have released this press document, we know for a fact that there is a non-empty set of non-exempt information about the Mayor's future calendar that not even you are withholding for security reasons.

We also know for a fact that the Mayor possesses at least 2 (and after the Order in 19047 issues, we'll find out if you have any more) calendar accounts titled "PropG, Mayor (MYR)" and "Calendar, Mayor (MYR)" that hold her business calendar info.

Why have you not produced the portions of at least those two accounts showing the at least 7 items shown on the press calendar between Oct 21 and Oct 28? Even if you redact most of the information, you must produce the records and justify all of the redactions.

Sincerely,

Anonymous

From: Office of the Mayor

Good Afternoon:

You have been named as a Respondent 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.

Both parties (Complainant and Respondent) will be contacted once a hearing date is determined.
Thank you.

Victor Young
Board of Supervisors
1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, City Hall., Room 244
San Francisco CA 94102
phone 415-554-7723 | fax 415-554-5163
victor.young@sfgov.org<mailto:victor.young@sfgov.org> | www.sfbos.org<http://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: Office of the Mayor

Hi Victor,

Thank you for the notice. Kanishka and Rebecca were not involved in this request. Can we remove them as respondents please?

Thank you,

Hank Heckel
Legal Compliance Officer
Office of the Mayor
City and County of San Francisco
(415) 554-4796

From: Anonymous Journalist

** 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). Redact your responses correctly - once you send them to us there is no going back. **

I have not named Rebecca or Kanishka as respondents, as I do not know who they are.

However, if they are 'custodians' per SFAC 67.21 of the Mayor's future schedule, I am happy to name them in the complaint as well.

--Anonymous (19103)

From: Office of the Mayor

Anonymous,

Rebecca and Kanishka are not custodians of the Mayor’s future schedule and there is accordingly no basis to add them in the complaint.
Regards,

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

From: Anonymous Journalist

Perfect - I did not name them anyway, I believe that was an administrative decision by SOTF, so I am happy to have them removed.

My complaint as filed is:
Anonymous v Mayor London Breed, Hank Heckel, and Office of the Mayor

Thanks!

From: Anonymous Journalist

FILE 19103

SOTF,

Please add to file 19103, the attachment, and this email.

In Order 18075 (attached), Kevin Williams v. George Gascon, District Attorney, your task force found that the District Attorney must provide future calendars, and failing to do so was an SFAC 67.21 violation.
"The SOTF opined that future schedule/calendars are public records and should be provided in a redacted format. "

In File 19047 (order pending), Anonymous v. Mayor London Breed, et al. your task force found that the Mayor's non-Prop G calendars are public records.

Considering those 2 cases together, it is clear that the Mayor's, non-Prop-G, future calendar must be provided, in redacted form, with specific justifications.

Sincerely,
Anonymous

From: Anonymous Journalist

FILE 19103

SOTF,

Please add to file 19103, the attachment, and this email.

In Order 18075 (attached), Kevin Williams v. George Gascon, District Attorney, your task force found that the District Attorney must provide future calendars, and failing to do so was an SFAC 67.21 violation.
"The SOTF opined that future schedule/calendars are public records and should be provided in a redacted format. "

In File 19047 (order pending), Anonymous v. Mayor London Breed, et al. your task force found that the Mayor's non-Prop G calendars are public records.

Considering those 2 cases together, it is clear that the Mayor's, non-Prop-G, future calendar must be provided, in redacted form, with specific justifications.

Sincerely,
Anonymous

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 Journalist

** 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). Redact your responses correctly - once you send them to us there is no going back. **

FILE 19103

Mr. Heckel,

In Order 18075 ( https://sfgov.org/sunshine/sites/default/files/SOTF_Order_18075.pdf ), Kevin Williams v. George Gascon, District Attorney, SOTF found:
"The SOTF opined that future schedule/calendars are public records and should be provided in a redacted format. "
and determined that failing to provide them was unlawful.

In 19047, Anonymous v. Mayor London Breed, et al. SOTF found that the Mayor's non-Prop G calendars are public records and that failing to provide them was unlawful.

Considering those 2 cases together, it is clear that the non-Prop-G, future calendar must be provided, in redacted form, with specific justifications.

Please provide them immediately. If you want to redact every line and justify it, that is your option. (see: 18075, " Member Cate opined that the DA’s calendar could have been produced if every line had been redacted. ")

Sincerely,

Anonymous

From: Office of the Mayor

Good Evening:

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: November 26, 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. 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. 19103: Complaint filed by Anonymous against Mayor London Breed, Hank Heckel and the Mayor's Offices for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Sections 67.21, 67.25 and 67.26, by failing to respond to an Immediate Disclosure Request in a timely and/or complete manner.

File No. 19108: Complaint filed by Anonymous against City Attorney Dennis Herrera, Elizabeth Coolbrith and the Office of the City Attorney for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Sections 67.25, 67.27, 67.29-5, by failing to respond to an Immediate Disclosure Request in a timely and/or complete manner, failing respond to a public records request in a timely manner and/or complete manner. Failing to justify withholding of records and failing to maintain a Proposition G Calendar.

File No. 19111: Complaint filed by Michael Petrelis against Supervisor Rafael Mandelman for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Section 67.21, by failing to respond to a request for public records in a timely and/or complete manner.

File No. 19114: Complaint filed by Shane Anderies against Tyler Vu and the Public Defender's Office for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Section 67.24, 67.25, 67.26, 67.27 and 67.29 by failing to respond to an Immediate Disclosure 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, November 19, 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 Journalist

RE: SOTF 19103 / Oct. 4 request for Oct. 21-28 calendars

Office of Mayor,

To remind you, you fully withheld all documents responsive to IDR (1) on Oct. 7 under GC 6254(f).
I believe you have never responded at all to non-IDRs (2) and (3).

Sincerely,
Anonymous

From: Office of the Mayor

We are following up on this request and will provide any remaining documents on a rolling basis this week.
Regards,

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

From: Anonymous Journalist

Whether you provide calendars of dates future to a request date after that date passes or not, we will continue to maintain all complaints on the basis of your refusal to provide them initially.

From: Office of the Mayor

Anonymous,

See our materials submitted regarding this file concerning future calendar entries. We understand your position regarding this issue as it arises in ongoing requests, per your most recent email this evening.
Regards,

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

From: Office of the Mayor

Dear SOTF Parties:

The agenda and packet for the Compliance And Amendments Committee 11/26/19 - 4:30 p.m. meeting is online at the following link:

https://sfgov.org/sunshine/sites/default/files/cac112619_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

See the additional records responsive to your request. Please note the recurrence pattern has been redacted per the previously cited security exemptions, including the Times Mirror case, re future entries. Cell numbers have been redacted for privacy protection.

From: Office of the Mayor

Dear Anonymous:

The following is the information you will need to participate in tomorrow's Compliance and Amendments Committee Hearing (tel. no. 877-402-9753 and participant code 554-7726). Please phone me at 4:00 PM so that I can make certain that you can hear the hearing. I have cc'd City Hall Media Services for their information. 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:

Hello,

Confirming that I will be present for the hearing later today. See you at City Hall.

Michael Petrelis
Public Advocate

From:

Hello,

Confirming that I will be present for the hearing later today. See you at City Hall.

Michael Petrelis
Public Advocate

From:

Good morning,

Just confirming the Shane K. Anderies will appear at City Hall for this afternoon’s meeting.

Nicole S. Mitchell, Paralegal
Anderies & Gomes LLP
601 Montgomery Street, Suite 888
San Francisco, CA 94111
T: (415) 217-8802 ext. 8806
F: (415) 217-8803
www.andgolaw.com<https://url.serverdata.net/?aA77IDQPO94XaBBbcAO87sDhTKKSg1jez-e1yo68mypM~>

________________________________

From: Office of the Mayor

Dear Anonymous:

This is to confirm that you will appear for today's Compliance and Amendments Committee hearing starting at 4:30 PM. Please call 877-402-9753 and use participant code 5547726 at 4:00 pm so that I can be assured that you are heard. File no. 19103 will be heard first and file no. 19108 will be heard immediately following. Thanks.

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 Journalist

Supervisor of Records,

On Oct. 23, 2019 you incorrectly denied my Oct. 7 petition for, inter alia, all parts of the then-future Oct. 21-28 Mayor's calendar entries responsive to an Oct. 4 IDR.  This is a new 67.21(d) petition for the same.

Please read my full attached analysis. It is summarized below.

You have misconstrued and misapplied Times Mirror Co vs Superior Court (1991).  The Supreme Court explicitly relies solely on GC 6255 to exempt the Governor's past calendar, and thus it has no applicability to an SF public official's future calendar.  One, there is absolutely no mention of GC 6254(f) in that case.  And, as you well know, GC 6255 is prohibited in the City of SF, based on SFAC 67.24(g,i).  You cannot use this case.  I have attached the case if you wish to read it again.

You have a responsibility to determine whether any part of the requested records were public.  We know now through other follow-ups that the requested records contained at least the following words or similar:
"Senior Staff Check In," "Bi-Weekly Meeting with Ken Rich," "Press Time," "Ed Reiskin (Staff: Andres Power," "Weekly Meeting with Police," "Jeff Cretan," and "Kanishka Cheng re: Commissions"

None of these meeting subject lines were "security procedures" of the SFPD; they weren't security procedures on Oct. 4 nor on Oct. 7.  They should all have been disclosed on Oct. 7, even if they redacted the locations and times in the individual meeting view.

Therefore, I want my 67.21(d) written determination that the subjects/titles/descriptions/bodies of Mayor's future calendar entries are public parts of records.

Sincerely,

Anonymous

From: Office of the Mayor

We disagree with your interpretation of the Times Mirror case and our prior determination. We stand by that determination, attached for your convenience.
Best,

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 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: November 4, 2020

Location: Remote meeting

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. 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. 19076: Reconsideration of SOTF findings based upon the Order of Determination.

File No. 19058: Complaint filed by Robert M. Smith against the Fine Arts Museum of San Francisco 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. 19103: Complaint filed by Anonymous against Mayor London Breed, Hank Heckel and the Mayor's Offices for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Sections 67.21, 67.25 and 67.26 by failing to respond to an Immediate Disclosure Request in a timely and/or complete manner.

File No. 19119: Complaint filed by Anonymous against the Department of Technology for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Sections 67.21(b), 67.26 and 67.27 by failing to respond to a public records request in a timely and/or complete manner.

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, October 29, 2020.

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

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 2, 2020

Location: Remote Meeting

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. 19058: Complaint filed by Robert M. Smith against the Fine Arts Museum of San Francisco for 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. 19103: Complaint filed by Anonymous against Mayor London Breed, Hank Heckel and the Mayor's Offices for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Sections 67.21, 67.25 and 67.26, by failing to respond to an Immediate Disclosure Request in a timely and/or complete manner.

File No. 19119: Complaint filed by Anonymous against the Department of Technology for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Sections 67.21(b), 67.26 and 67.27, by failing to respond to a public records request in a timely and/or complete manner.

File No. 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. 19140: Complaint filed by Stephen Malloy against the Department of Human Resources for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Sections 67.21and 67.25, by failing to respond to a request for public records in a timely and/or complete manner.

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 19, 2020.

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

Good Afternoon:

The agenda and packet for the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force December 2, 2020 4:00 p.m. meeting is online at the following link:

https://sfgov.org/sunshine/sites/default/files/sotf_120220_agenda.pdf

The packet material is linked to each item listed on the agenda marked 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
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: Anonymous Journalist

Mayor London Breed,

This is an immediate disclosure request for the contents of all calendars/meetings/scheduling entries for your expected/prospective meetings, in detailed form, including but not limited all subject lines, attachments, images, attendees, attendee status, dates, times, locations, and message bodies, for JANUARY 10 to JANUARY 24, 2021 (inclusive). Neither metadata nor iCalendar (ICS) files are requested, but you may provide them if you wish. You must minimally redact these records with a key and either footnote or other clear reference for every redaction.

You should actually read the below to make a cogent legal argument that I am wrong:

Times Mirror: Times Mirror (1991) is no longer good law in the State of California. Immediately after Proposition 59, the Governor, in pre-trial settlement of the lawsuit brought by the First Amendment Coalition, did provide the meeting entries previously exempt under this ruling. Even if this ruling were still good outside of San Francisco, it was never permitted in San Francisco due to SFAC 67.24(g,h,i). Even if you were to unlawfully ignore Prop 59 and SFAC 67.24(g,h,i), some portion on the record poses no threat to the Mayor's physical security. And, after all that, during COVID-19, many of the Mayor's meetings are conducted via teleconference, so even if you unlawfully did use the full Times Mirror ruling, those entries could not possibly endanger the Mayor's physical security and must be in their entirety disclosed. Disclosure could endanger the Mayor's deliberative process privilege, which of course has been banned in San Francisco since 1999 and continues to be banned under COVID-19.

Safety of officials: No exemption exists for this vague notion - you have cited no law. There is a specific prohibition on the disclosure by agencies of officials' home address and phone number under CPRA, which has not been cited. Under Prop 59, you cannot expand this exemption beyond its plain meaning.

Evid Code 1040: The Mayor cannot logically receive her own calendar in confidence, nor is there any state or federal law *prohibiting* this release, nor does this information cause harm to "justice." This citation is irrelevant.

Gov Code 6254(f): The contents of the "SID" entries detailing the Mayor's security detail constitute "records of ... security procedures of" the SFPD, and may be properly exempt, whether future or past. No other information is a "record of" a "security procedure of" the SFPD.

Rule of reason: This request is not so voluminous so as to create "chaos in the record archives" and this citation is irrelevant. Bruce v. Gregory (1967) 65 Cal.2d 666, 676.

Sincerely,
Anonymous

From: Office of the Mayor

Anonymous,

We are reviewing the arguments set forth below. Can you please provide a record of the settlement you are referencing with regard to the First Amendment Coalition lawsuit so I can understand what specific records were at issue and what was produced?
Regards,

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

From: Office of the Mayor

Dear Parties: Attached please find a signed Order of Determination for file no. 19103.

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: Office of the Mayor

Dear Parties: Attached is the Order of Determination in 19103 for your records. This document was published today.

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: Anonymous Journalist

Mayor's Office: I certainly hope you preserved all responsive records to my Oct 4, 2019 request as they existed when I requested them so that you can comply with SOTF Order 19103. You still have not turned them over. As you know, you are required to retain responsive records when they are requested pending all appeals. I will request metadata in a subsequent request to find out if these records were preserved when I requested them or have been modified.

The original requests from oct 4 2019:

1. IMMEDIATE DISCLOSURE: an electronic copy of the Mayor's *prospective/expected* calendar or schedule, with all expected events/items, from Oct 21 to Oct 28, 2019 (inclusive). Calendar items must include (but are not limited to): the exact start and end time of the meeting, the location, the title, all invitees and whether they accepted or not, attachments, inline images, if they exist in the record. We are specifically requesting ALL calendar/scheduling items, individually, for the Mayor, whether the Mayor herself possesses them or her staff, whether they are labeled "Prop G" or not, and whether they are on a computer or in physical form (such as a diary, a physical calendar on a wall, etc.). You are welcome to print each item (not the summary view) directly to .PDF form in Outlook and redact them. Do not cutoff information like long text that does not fit on the screen - that would be unjustified withholding. In order to ensure immediacy of disclosure, in this and only this request, .ics format and headers are NOT specifically requested (though you are welcome to provide them if it can be provided immediately).

2. REGULAR DISCLOSURE: If the Mayor or any of the Mayor's staff uses any invitation/guestlist tracking systems on behalf of the Mayor (such as Outlook's invite mechanism OR regular emails), those items are included within the scope of this request #2. In order to ensure rapid disclosure, in this and only this request, particular formats and headers are NOT specifically requested (though you are welcome to provide them if it can be provided rapidly).

3. REGULAR DISCLOSURE: Furthermore, I request that a City of San Jose v Superior Court (2017) search be performed of the Mayor, her chief of staff (and deputy chiefs), and all personal/secretarial/administrative assistants, such that each such official either provide all records responsive to #1 that are 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 are also requested. In order to ensure rapid disclosure, in this and only this request, particular formats and headers are NOT specifically requested (though you are welcome to provide them if it can be provided rapidly).

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 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: February 23, 2021

Location: Remote meeting; participant information to be included on the Agenda

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. 19103: Hearing on the Status of the Order of Determination - Complaint filed by Anonymous against Mayor London Breed, Hank Heckel and the Office of the Mayor for violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Sections 67.26 and 67.27, by failing to keep withholdings to a minimum and failing to provide justification for withholdings.

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 and 6727, California Government Code 6253 and California Business and Professions Code 4857, by failing to provide request records in a timely and/or complete manner.

File No. 19092: 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), Sections 67.21 and 67.27, by failing to respond to an Immediate Disclosure Request in a timely and/or complete manner and failing to provide justification for withholding records.

File No. 20068: Complaint filed by James Chaffee against the Library Commission for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Sections 67.14 by failing to make audio recordings available on the website, 67.21 by failing to respond to a records request in a timely manner and 67.29 by failing to maintain the Library Commission website.

The Chair intends to consider a request for consolidation of File Nos. 19050, 19055 and 19059.

File No. 19050: Complaint filed by Ray Hartz against Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors, for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Sections 67.15(d), by failing to place his 150-word summaries as submitted to the Board of Supervisors "in the minutes."

File No. 19055: Complaint filed by Ray Hartz against Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors, for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Sections 67.15(d), by failing to place his 150-word summaries in the meeting minutes (Board of Supervisors May 14, 2019 meeting).

File No. 19059: Complaint filed by Ray Hartz against Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors, for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Sections 67.15(d), by failing to place his 150-word summaries in the meeting minutes (Board of Supervisors May 21, 2019 meeting).

The chair intends to consider a request to consolidation of File Nos. 19051, 19054 and 19057.

File No. 19051: Complaint filed by Ray Hartz against Norman Yee, President of the Board of Supervisors, for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Sections 67.16, by failing to place his 150-word summaries in the meeting minutes (Board of Supervisors May 7, 2019 meeting).

File No. 19054: Complaint filed by Ray Hartz against Norman Yee, President of the Board of Supervisors, for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Sections 67.16, by failing to place his 150-word summaries in the meeting minutes (Board of Supervisors May 14, 2019 meeting).

File No. 19057: Complaint filed by Ray Hartz against Norman Yee, President of the Board of Supervisors, for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Sections 67.16, by failing to place his 150-word summaries in the meeting minutes (Board of Supervisors May 21, 2019 meeting).

Documentation (evidence supporting/disputing complaint)

For a document to be considered, it must be received at least five (3) 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, February 18, 2021.

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

Good Afternoon:

The agenda and packet for the Compliance and Amendments Committee of the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force February 23, 2021 4:30 p.m. meeting is online at the following link:

https://sfgov.org/sunshine/sites/default/files/cac022321_agenda.pdf

The packet material is linked to each item listed on the agenda marked 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
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.

Files

pages

Close