Future Calendars and Meetings - Immediate Disclosure Request

twitter.com/journo_anon Public Records Requester filed this request with the San Francisco City Attorney of San Francisco, CA.

It is a clone of this request.

Est. Completion None
Status
Fix Required
Tags

Communications

From: twitter.com/journo_anon Public Records Requester

Office of City Attorney,

** 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 8, 2019 re: your department head's calendars. 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 your department head must attend to, even though Prop G/67.29-5 requires no such calendar be kept.

All calendars, whether Prop G/67.29-5 or not, that your agency prepared, owned, used, or retained re: the public's business are public records (see SOTF 19047; Sup. of Records response of Sept. 6; and Good Government Guide).

I suspect your office may attempt to use Gov Code 6254(f). The entirety of a future schedule cannot possibly be confidential law enforcement investigatory records under GC 6254(f). This exemption does not even exist for your office, which 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 department head 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:
1a). IMMEDIATE DISCLOSURE: an electronic copy of the department head'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 department head, whether the department head themselves possesses them or their 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 virtually print/export
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). Do NOT physically print and re-scan records

1b). IMMEDIATE DISCLOSURE: an electronic copy of the department head's calendar or schedule, with all events/items, from Sep 30 to Oct 7, 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 department head, whether the department head themselves possesses them or their 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 virtually print/export
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). Do NOT physically print and re-scan records.

2. REGULAR DISCLOSURE: If the department head or any of the department head's staff uses any invitation/guestlist tracking systems on behalf of the department head (such as Outlook's invite mechanism OR regular emails), those items are included within the scope of this request #2, for the date range in #1. 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 department head, their senior-most deputy, their chief of staff (or equivalent, 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: San Francisco City Attorney

Dear Requester,

I am writing in behalf of the City Attorney’s Office in response to your immediate disclosure requests numbered 1a and 1b in your below request. Please note we hereby invoke an extension of no more than 14 days to consult with another department regarding the records (See Cal. Gov’t Code §6253(c)(3)). We will endeavor to process your request as quickly as possible and anticipate responding no later than the close of business October 23, 2019.

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

Sincerely,

[cid:image002.jpg@01D57EB4.04A912E0]Elizabeth A. Coolbrith
Paralegal
Office of City Attorney Dennis Herrera
(415) 554-4685 Direct
www.sfcityattorney.org
Find us on: Facebook<https://www.facebook.com/sfcityattorney/> Twitter<https://twitter.com/SFCityAttorney> Instagram<https://www.instagram.com/sfcityattorney/>

From: twitter.com/journo_anon Public Records Requester

What department are you consulting?

They are your *own* department's calendars.
You are the attorneys that everyone else in the City consults, and usually uses to claim that kind of extension.
And I didn't ask for any special formats or custom metadata, so Dept of Tech. would also not make any sense.

I also recall that in Case 19044 your agency testified that your own IT staff redacted records.

Provide immediately the calendar meetings in 1a and 1b.
I will contest this untimely production of 1a and 1b in addition to any other failures of production.

Also, I will be continue to argue it is a 10-day, not 14-day, extension under 67.25.

Sincerely,
Anonymous

From: San Francisco City Attorney

Dear requester,

Please see attached document responsive to your request numbered 1b below. We are working on the remainder of your requests, and will respond to those as soon as possible.

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

Sincerely,

[cid:image002.jpg@01D58351.286C3F30]Elizabeth A. Coolbrith
Paralegal
Office of City Attorney Dennis Herrera
(415) 554-4685 Direct
www.sfcityattorney.org
Find us on: Facebook<https://www.facebook.com/sfcityattorney/> Twitter<https://twitter.com/SFCityAttorney> Instagram<https://www.instagram.com/sfcityattorney/>

From: twitter.com/journo_anon Public Records Requester

Perfect, thanks. Is 1b complete? We asked for non-Prop G calendars as well.

From: San Francisco City Attorney

Yes, 1b is complete.

Thanks,

[cid:image002.jpg@01D5835B.3719ADB0]Elizabeth A. Coolbrith
Paralegal
Office of City Attorney Dennis Herrera
(415) 554-4685 Direct
www.sfcityattorney.org
Find us on: Facebook<https://www.facebook.com/sfcityattorney/> Twitter<https://twitter.com/SFCityAttorney> Instagram<https://www.instagram.com/sfcityattorney/>

From: twitter.com/journo_anon Public Records Requester

Sup. of Records,

This is a SFAC 67.21(d) petition regarding specific issues re: the City Attorney's past calendar items. Please issue a determination in writing.

No non-PDF formats or metadata not commonly visible in Outlook was requested here, so you do not need to consider those issues. This petition regards solely (1b) of our request (copied below); the other parts are pending response from the City Atty and may be petitioned later.

First, Herrera's sole responsive calendar record (attached) does not even meet Prop G 67.29-5 calendar requirements for the City Attorney. Mr. Herrera must disclose, as a public record, and you must "determine" to be a public record or part thereof, "the time and place of each meeting or event attended by that official, either in person or by teleconference or other electronic means" (67.29-5(a)). The attached files shows there are no "place[s] of each meeting". Wherever he has kept that information, he must disclose it, whether in this view or not. While the City Atty may argue a 67.29-5(e) exemption (but has not done so), for Herrera that exemption may solely apply to 67.29-5(b) and (c), NOT (a). While he may not have to identify City employees, he must indicate the location of the meetings. And, at the very least, the Oct. 1 Salesforce meeting was surely not in his own office.

Second, surely Mr. Herrera has additional non-Prop G scheduling information (we requested all of it) so he can actually conduct his regular business and know who is at these meetings. The City Atty has not stated any withholdings, nor any justifications for withholding in. If you wish to redact privileged portions of that, that is fine, but right now we have nothing.
SOTF 19047 on Oct. 2 already found that the Mayor's non-Prop G calendars are public, and your own Sup. of Records response on Sept. 6 found similarly (https://cdn.muckrock.com/foia_files/2019/09/06/2019-09-06_Ltr_to_Muckrock.pdf), though you failed to grant the petition in that case. Please determine to be public all non-Prop G records in this request.

Third, individual meeting items were not provided. Each such item is a record, and is a public record, and we requested each of them. We specifically stated we did not want a summary view. Please determine to be public each of the records merely summarized in the sole record they provided.

"1b). IMMEDIATE DISCLOSURE: an electronic copy of the department head's calendar or schedule, with all events/items, from Sep 30 to Oct 7, 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 department head, whether the department head themselves possesses them or their 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 virtually print/export 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). Do NOT physically print and re-scan records."

Sincerely,

Anonymous

From: twitter.com/journo_anon Public Records Requester

SOTF,

Please docket a new complaint, with attached files, provide a file number, and cc me on the request for response.

Respondent: Dennis Herrera, Elizabeth Coolbrith, Office of City Attorney
Complainant: Anonymous (requests@muckrock.com)

Violations alleged:
67.29-5 for failing to maintain a Prop G calendar,
67.25 for failing to respond to an IDR in a timely or complete manner,
67.26 for withholding non-exempt information,
67.27 for failing to justify withholding

COMPLAINT:

This is a SFAC 67.21(e) and 67.30 petition/complaint regarding specific issues re: the City Attorney's past calendar items. Not even a Prop G calendar appears to be maintained properly in this case.

No non-PDF formats or metadata not commonly visible in Outlook was requested here, so you do not need to consider those issues. This petition regards solely (1b) of our Oct 8 request (copied below); the other parts are pending response from the City Atty and may be petitioned later.

I issued an IDR on Oct. 8. On Oct. 9 Coolbrith extended for 14 days "to consult with another department regarding the records (See Cal. Gov’t Code §6253(c)(3))." This is inappropriate - no other department should be needed to print out *even Prop G* calendar entries in PDF format. Coolbrith responded on Oct. 15, without any claimed withholdings, with the sole attached record, claiming request (1b) was complete.

First, Herrera's sole responsive calendar record (attached) does not even meet Prop G 67.29-5 calendar requirements for the City Attorney. Mr. Herrera must disclose, as a public record, and you must "determine" to be a public record or part thereof, "the time and place of each meeting or event attended by that official, either in person or by teleconference or other electronic means" (67.29-5(a)). The attached files shows there are no "place[s] of each meeting". Wherever he has kept that information, he must disclose it, whether in this view or not. While the City Atty may argue a 67.29-5(e) exemption (but has not done so), for Herrera that exemption may solely apply to 67.29-5(b) and (c), NOT (a). While he may not have to identify City employees, he must indicate the location of the meetings. And, at the very least, the Oct. 1 Salesforce meeting was surely not in his own office.

Second, surely Mr. Herrera has additional non-Prop G scheduling information (we requested all of it) so he can actually conduct his regular business and know who is at these meetings. The City Atty has not stated any withholdings, nor any justifications for withholding in. If you wish to redact privileged portions of that, that is fine, but right now we have nothing.

SOTF 19047 Anonymous vs Breed et al. on Oct. 2 already found that the Mayor's non-Prop G calendars are public; and the Sup. of Records response on Sept. 6 found similarly (https://cdn.muckrock.com/foia_files/2019/09/06/2019-09-06_Ltr_to_Muckrock.pdf), though he failed to grant the petition in that case. Please determine to be public all non-Prop G Herrera records in this request.

Third, individual meeting items were not provided. Each such item is a record, and is a public record, and we requested each of them. We specifically stated we did not want a summary view. Please determine to be public each of the records merely summarized in the sole record they provided.

"1b). IMMEDIATE DISCLOSURE: an electronic copy of the department head's calendar or schedule, with all events/items, from Sep 30 to Oct 7, 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 department head, whether the department head themselves possesses them or their 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 virtually print/export 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). Do NOT physically print and re-scan records."

Sincerely,

Anonymous

From: San Francisco City Attorney

I am in recent of the complaint against the City Attorney> File No. 19108 has be tentatively assigned to the complaint and it will be processed shortly.

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: San Francisco City Attorney

We understand you had some questions about the calendar we produced yesterday in response to request #1b. In response to your questions, all of the meetings took place at City Hall, with the exception of the Salesforce event. We apologize for neglecting to list the address for that event. That event was at the Salesforce Tower, which is located at 415 Mission Street, San Francisco CA 94105. Also, per your request, this will confirm that we have indeed withheld information that is exempt from disclosure under the attorney-client privilege or work product privilege. Your final question asked about any “meeting items” that may be contained in the calendar. The calendar does not contain any notes or other information beyond what we already provided you, and the City Attorney does not use outlook invitations to set up meetings, so it appears we do not have any further responsive information. To the extent you are asking about emails used to set up and confirm meetings, we interpret that to be within the scope of your request #2, which we are still working on.

We hope this answers your questions. In the future, if you have follow-up questions, please feel free to just contact us directly at this email.

Thanks,

[cid:image003.jpg@01D58421.9BD6A3E0]Elizabeth A. Coolbrith
Paralegal
Office of City Attorney Dennis Herrera
(415) 554-4685 Direct
www.sfcityattorney.org
Find us on: Facebook<https://www.facebook.com/sfcityattorney/> Twitter<https://twitter.com/SFCityAttorney> Instagram<https://www.instagram.com/sfcityattorney/>

From: Office of the Mayor

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: twitter.com/journo_anon Public Records Requester

Re: (1b) Ms. Coolbrith while I understand you can answer these questions, my issue is that Mr. Herrera simply does not maintain a Prop G calendar in accordance with 67.29-5. His calendar is missing locations.

From: San Francisco City Attorney

I am writing in response to parts 2-3 of your below request. After diligent search and inquiry, we determined we have no responsive records.

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

Sincerely,

[cid:image002.jpg@01D585AB.F199FBC0]Elizabeth A. Coolbrith
Paralegal
Office of City Attorney Dennis Herrera
(415) 554-4685 Direct
www.sfcityattorney.org
Find us on: Facebook<https://www.facebook.com/sfcityattorney/> Twitter<https://twitter.com/SFCityAttorney> Instagram<https://www.instagram.com/sfcityattorney/>

From: twitter.com/journo_anon Public Records Requester

Thank you I believe 1a is all that is remaining

From: San Francisco City Attorney

Dear requester,

The only item remaining on this thread was request 1a. In response to request 1a, please see the attached document, showing the City Attorney’s expected calendar as of the date we received your request, for the dates of October 21-22. We respectfully decline to share the calendar for the dates that are not yet past (at this time, October 23-28), based on the exemptions from disclosure set forth at Govt Code 6254(f) and Evidence Code 1040. If you still wish to see the calendar for those future dates, please let us know, and we can produce it to you once those dates have passed (i.e., after October 28).

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

Sincerely,

[cid:image002.jpg@01D589B2.454436A0]Elizabeth A. Coolbrith
Paralegal
Office of City Attorney Dennis Herrera
(415) 554-4685 Direct
www.sfcityattorney.org
Find us on: Facebook<https://www.facebook.com/sfcityattorney/> Twitter<https://twitter.com/SFCityAttorney> Instagram<https://www.instagram.com/sfcityattorney/>

From: twitter.com/journo_anon Public Records Requester

No - Gov Code 6254(f) does not even apply, by its terms, to the City Attorney's office, and I will continue to proceed before both the SOTF and Sup. of Records.

Sincerely,
Anonymous

From: twitter.com/journo_anon Public Records Requester

Ms. Coolbrith,

SOTF Order 18075 vs the District Attorney states that "future schedule/calendars are public records and should be provided in a redacted format."
See: https://sfgov.org/sunshine/sites/default/files/SOTF_Order_18075.pdf

I ask you again to provide these records, redacted according to the law, with justifications for each and every redaction.

Sincerely,
Anonymous

From: San Francisco City Attorney

Dear requester,

We disagree with your position concerning 6254(f). In any event, please see the attached document, which contains a redaction based on attorney-client privilege.

Sincerely,

[cid:image003.jpg@01D58E5D.64FC59A0]Elizabeth A. Coolbrith
Paralegal
Office of City Attorney Dennis Herrera
(415) 554-4685 Direct
www.sfcityattorney.org
Find us on: Facebook<https://www.facebook.com/sfcityattorney/> Twitter<https://twitter.com/SFCityAttorney> Instagram<https://www.instagram.com/sfcityattorney/>

From: San Francisco City Attorney

Dear Anonymous:

I just received a request for a postponement for file no. 19108, scheduled to be heard on Tuesday, November 26 and outlined below, due to a scheduled vacation. As I told the Complainant, the decision is yours on whether or not to continue the matter. With that said, are you agreeable to that request?

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.

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: San Francisco City Attorney

Please see the attached response to your petition.

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: San Francisco City Attorney

Dear Anonymous:

Attached please find the response you requested. It was just received by my office.

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: twitter.com/journo_anon Public Records Requester

Supervisor of Records,

Thank you for your reply.

There are a few contentions I have with your response (even under your assumption of what records the agency does or does not have, which I do not necessarily concede and will argue against at SOTF). You may consider this a successive 67.21(d) petition to receive your written determination re: the public parts of records below:

1) You indicated that the particular topics discussed may be exempt under A-C and W-P privileges. However at least one meeting was with external parties (Oct. 1, Salesforce panel) and cannot be privileged in any way. In addition you indicated that the agency has no other records showing calendar information. However clearly the City Attorney does have a record of the location of these meetings, including the external Salesforce meeting; but for some reason Coolbrith has provided me answers to "questions" she believes I have asked (I do not believe I asked any questions), instead of just disclosing the records showing that location information. The records with the locations should be determined to be a public record.

2) You indicated that Herrera's refusal to provide the individual calendar entries does not withhold any additional information from me.
That is not true. As you may know from your own use of Outlook, the individual entry view shows an exact start and end time for each meeting (hour:minute). We know the City's individual Outlook meeting view, as converted to PDF (without any metadata), shows these exact start and end times as the Mayor's office has started producing such individual calendar entries in response to SOTF 19047. That info is not visible from the summary view they have provided. Meeting times are required to be kept and disclosed, and they are a public part of a record. On the summary view, since not all meetings start on the hour or half hour lines, the exact times cannot be known from the summary view. Furthermore at least one meeting shows a recurrence symbol - the recurrence information was entered in by a human being, and is thus certainly a "writing," and unlike the Mayor. This too would be visible on the individual record. Please note that we also contest Herrera's use of GC6254(f)/EC1040 to exempt future meeting information. However, even if you agree with Herrera on that exemption, the Outlook recurrence fields (which again were entered by a human) shows information including the date the recurrence began (i.e. past information), even if they redact the repetition information. Surely the recurrence start date cannot be confidential, and is thus a public part of a record.

Thanks,
Anonymous

From: San Francisco City Attorney

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: twitter.com/journo_anon Public Records Requester

** 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 for each item below:

1) The SFAC 67.29-5 (aka Prop G) calendar for Herrera for Nov. 11-18, 2019 (inclusive).
2) The SFAC 67.29-5 (aka Prop G) calendar for Herrera for Jan. 1-15, 2019 (inclusive).
3) The SFAC 67.29-5 (aka Prop G) calendar for Herrera for Mar. 1-15, 2019 (inclusive).

All of these dates are 3 business days or more prior to the date of this request. Therefore, you must have already prepared a Prop G calendar for these dates, therefore, and must immediately provide it. If any mandatory part of the required Prop G calendar is not provided, a complaint alleging failure to maintain and disclose a Prop G calendar will be filed. The calendar must at minimum provide exact times for the meetings, locations, brief summary, and in certain cases, identity of all participants.

Any electronic format that includes ALL items mandated by SFAC 67.29-5 is acceptable. If your summary view fails to show the exact times of each meeting, complaints will be filed.

Sincerely,
Anonymous

From: San Francisco City Attorney

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: San Francisco City Attorney

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: San Francisco City Attorney

Dear requester,

I am writing on behalf of the City Attorney’s Office in response to your below request for records. Attached please find the responsive document. Please note we have redacted personal information based on California Constitution, Article I, section 1, California Government Code Section 6254(k), and California Government Code Section 6254(c). These provisions guard against disclosure of information that would invade personal privacy. Please note we have also redacted privileged material covered by attorney-client privilege (Cal. Gov’t Code § 6276.04; Cal. Evid. Code § 954) and attorney work product (Cal. Gov’t Code § 6276.04; Cal. Code of Civil Pro. § 2018.030). A few of the privileged redactions we made may require further review. If we determine anything additional should be produced, we will get back to you as soon as possible.

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

[cid:image003.jpg@01D5A47B.169C1C80]Elizabeth A. Coolbrith
Paralegal
Office of City Attorney Dennis Herrera
(415) 554-4685 Direct
www.sfcityattorney.org
Find us on: Facebook<https://www.facebook.com/sfcityattorney/> Twitter<https://twitter.com/SFCityAttorney> Instagram<https://www.instagram.com/sfcityattorney/>

From: twitter.com/journo_anon Public Records Requester

Thank you for the records. As you know, we allege the City Attorney is violating SFAC 67.29-5 in SOTF 19108 (now going to the full task force), and your response here is good evidence that such violations have been going on for a long time, and are still on going.

Regardless, there is another issue. You stated 3 types of redactions: privacy, a/c privilege, w/p product.
You are required under SFAC 67.26 to provide a "clear reference" (such as a footnote) for each redaction on pg. 10, 20, 26.
Which redaction

For future reference, note that I do not have to request these clear references, you need to provide them in your response to all requests. It is not optional or only on demand.

Sincerely,
Anonymous

From: San Francisco City Attorney

Thank you for your email. The redactions on the 1/10/19 entry were based on privacy. The other redactions were based on attorney-client privilege and attorney work product privilege.

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

[cid:image002.jpg@01D5A512.8047EF50]Elizabeth A. Coolbrith
Paralegal
Office of City Attorney Dennis Herrera
(415) 554-4685 Direct
www.sfcityattorney.org
Find us on: Facebook<https://www.facebook.com/sfcityattorney/> Twitter<https://twitter.com/SFCityAttorney> Instagram<https://www.instagram.com/sfcityattorney/>

From: San Francisco City Attorney

Dear requester,

This is a follow-up on your request below. Upon further review, we were able to remove three redactions for entries on 3/05/19 and 3/11/19. The corrected copy of the relevant date range, with those redactions removed, is attached.

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

[cid:image003.jpg@01D5A91A.42D35E50]Elizabeth A. Coolbrith
Paralegal
Office of City Attorney Dennis Herrera
(415) 554-4685 Direct
www.sfcityattorney.org
Find us on: Facebook<https://www.facebook.com/sfcityattorney/> Twitter<https://twitter.com/SFCityAttorney> Instagram<https://www.instagram.com/sfcityattorney/>

From: twitter.com/journo_anon Public Records Requester

Please provide as an immediate disclosure request, all of Herrera's calendars/meetings/events (on *every* govt calendar account for Herrera, including but not limited to "CityAttorney" AND "Herrera, Dennis (CAT)" AND "Dennis Herrera (CAT)" AND "Dennis Herrera" AND "Herrera, Dennis" if they exist) for Dec 18-26. The Daily Summary View is sufficient. No metadata or special formats are needed, so I expect a full response by Tuesday, Dec. 10, including if you plan to fully withhold on the basis of GC 6254(f) and EC 1040 again. That decision should not take 10 days.

If you withhold the entirety of any day OR entirety of any meeting (instead of redacting only the "security procedures"), we intend to get the same order as prior order SOTF 18075: https://sfgov.org/sunshine/sites/default/files/SOTF_Order_18075.pdf

Be sure to justify each and every redaction or withholding with footnote or clear reference to statutory/case law justification.
Withholding in entirety, lack of specific justifications, or delay beyond Dec 10 will cause further complaints.

Thanks,
Anonymous

From: San Francisco City Attorney

Dear requester,

I am responding on behalf of the City Attorney’s Office to your below request. Your request was sent as an "Immediate Disclosure Request" under San Francisco Administrative Code Section 67.25(a). But to qualify under that section, the request must be “simple, routine and readily answerable.” The Sunshine Ordinance requires shorter response times in those situations where a department is able to quickly locate and produce the requested records. In order to respond to your request, this office will need to conduct a review of our files to find responsive records. For this reason, we are not treating your request as one appropriately filed as an “immediate disclosure” request, but as one which is subject to the normally applicable 10-day response time, which is 12/19/19. We will endeavor to respond to you as soon as possible.

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

Sincerely,

[cid:image002.jpg@01D5AF76.A28ABA20]Elizabeth A. Coolbrith
Paralegal
Office of City Attorney Dennis Herrera
(415) 554-4685 Direct
www.sfcityattorney.org
Find us on: Facebook<https://www.facebook.com/sfcityattorney/> Twitter<https://twitter.com/SFCityAttorney> Instagram<https://www.instagram.com/sfcityattorney/>

From: San Francisco City Attorney

Dear requester,

We respectfully decline to share the calendar for December 18-26 at this time, as those dates are not yet past, based on Government Code section 6254(f) and Evidence Code section 1040. Please note, we do not intend to withhold the entire calendar on these bases after the dates are in the past. We do not accept standing requests, however, so if you still want to see what was calendared for the week of December 18-26 after those dates have passed, please submit another request at the appropriate time.

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

Sincerely,

[cid:image002.jpg@01D5B024.D36A54D0]Elizabeth A. Coolbrith
Paralegal
Office of City Attorney Dennis Herrera
(415) 554-4685 Direct
www.sfcityattorney.org
Find us on: Facebook<https://www.facebook.com/sfcityattorney/> Twitter<https://twitter.com/SFCityAttorney> Instagram<https://www.instagram.com/sfcityattorney/>

From: twitter.com/journo_anon Public Records Requester

Thank you. We will shortly file a SOTF complaint on what we see as a purely legal question for the Task Force to resolve:

* Can the City Attorney withhold in entirety his future calendar pursuant to GC 6254(f) and EC 1040, or must he provide it in minimally redacted form (SFAC 67.26)?

We believe prior SOTF Order 18075 vs District Attorney makes clear that full withholding is not acceptable.
We shall see whether SOTF 19103 vs Mayor Breed and/or SOTF 19112 vs Chief Scott and their full withholding is acceptable as well, which is somewhat different. Unlike in the Mayor's case, I have seen no evidence in the record that Mr. Herrera maintains a round-the-clock SFPD detail, therefore we believe the instant request is more similar to SOTF Order 18075.
Furthermore, since we also know what the calendar looks like in the past, with words like "Review Advice/Staff Consultation," we can confidently argue that at least some words on the page are not a security procedure of the SFPD. Finally, the use of the official information privilege requires 2 things to be true: EC 1040(a) AND, either EC 1040(b)(1) OR EC 1040(b)(2). We do not believe Mr. Herrera can "acquire[] in confidence" his *own* calendars, and he will be named as a respondent, since the request was indeed sent to cityattorney@sfcityatty.org . Regardless, are you asserting EC 1040(b)(1) or (2) or both?

From: San Francisco City Attorney

Dear requester,

Could you please clarify the distinction you are drawing between withholding and redacting? Putting aside your claim that the exemptions we cited don’t apply, are you suggesting that rather than withhold a calendar in its entirety, a department should produce a calendar with all of the information blacked out? We can better evaluate your claim regarding redactions if we understand what you are asking for.

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

Sincerely,

[cid:image002.jpg@01D5B02C.1575F800]Elizabeth A. Coolbrith
Paralegal
Office of City Attorney Dennis Herrera
(415) 554-4685 Direct
www.sfcityattorney.org
Find us on: Facebook<https://www.facebook.com/sfcityattorney/> Twitter<https://twitter.com/SFCityAttorney> Instagram<https://www.instagram.com/sfcityattorney/>

From: twitter.com/journo_anon Public Records Requester

Let me clarify. The word "redact" doesn't appear in SFAC 67.26 and SFAC 67.27, instead:

67.26: No record shall be withheld from disclosure in its entirety unless all information contained in it is exempt from disclosure under express provisions of the California Public Records Act or of some other statute. Information that is exempt from disclosure shall be masked, deleted or otherwise segregated in order that the nonexempt portion of a requested record may be released, and keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the appropriate justification for withholding required by section 67.27 of this article. ....

67.27: Any withholding of information shall be justified, in writing, as follows: ...

What is commonly called "redaction" is I believe really a withholding of information by masking, namely: "information that is exempt from disclosure" being "masked ... in order that the nonexempt portion of a requested record may be released, and keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the appropriate justification for withholding." Furthermore "any" withholding of information (not just the withholding the entirety of a record) must be justified.

See the attached document (a future calendar entry, published by SFPL) for what your records should look like.
At least *some words* on your version of that page must not be a security procedure or official information. And if you only give the Daily view, instead of that individual view of each record, you are still also withholding, without justification, information that appears on that individual view that is not visible on the daily view.

In Mayor Breed's analogous case, I believe for example that the title/subject, body/description, category, attendees/invitees, and all the row names on the left hand side of the page etc. are not lawfully exempt, *even* if one could argue the location and exact times are security procedures due to her SFPD detail (though, to be clear, we do not concede that those are exempt either).

Therefore, Mr. Herrera should provide this view of each of his future calendar entries, then redact (aka withhold by masking) whatever you assert is exempt, give justifications for those redactions (withholdings by masking), and continue on to have a more narrow dispute (if we still need to). I believe SOTF 18075 even makes explicitly such a suggestion , that if on a particular individual entry you need to redact all the rows, you can still provide that, so we know what we're debating.

If you would like to discuss internally a more minimal withholding option (by redacting only parts of the individual future meeting entries, as per the attached above), please let me know and I can wait a few days to file the complaint. We will definitely file prior to Dec 18 date requested though so the entries do not stop being future dates.

Thanks,
Anonymous

  • EXAMPLE-12.17.19_Lunch_Molly_Luis_and_Michael_Redacted.pdf

From: San Francisco City Attorney

Dear requester,

Attached is a redacted version of the document you requested. The redactions are based on Government Code 6254(f) and the Times-Mirror case. Please note, the city attorney’s calendar is different from the library example you sent, in that the city attorney calendar does not use the outlook invite function and thus we do not have any individual calendar items beyond what has been produced to you here in redacted form.

Thanks,

[cid:image003.jpg@01D5B1A8.AAE98370]Elizabeth A. Coolbrith
Paralegal
Office of City Attorney Dennis Herrera
(415) 554-4685 Direct
www.sfcityattorney.org
Find us on: Facebook<https://www.facebook.com/sfcityattorney/> Twitter<https://twitter.com/SFCityAttorney> Instagram<https://www.instagram.com/sfcityattorney/>

From: twitter.com/journo_anon Public Records Requester

- thanks, we will appeal this: the subject matter of your meetings are not a security procedure.

Btw your office definitely has individual meeting entries. Even if you do not use invitations, by double clicking on the entry and printing it out it will show at least the exact start and end times which is info withheld from your summary views for both future and past entries. Almost every other agency has now complied even when they don't use invites, why this office does not I am not sure.

Anonymous

From: San Francisco City Attorney

We stand by our prior determination on this petition, 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: twitter.com/journo_anon Public Records Requester

The City is still unlawfully withholding at least the exact start and end times, which is public information, and which appear solely on the individual meeting view, and we will continue to appeal this.

This is simple stubbornness on the part of the City at this point.

From: San Francisco City Attorney

Dear Anonymous:

Attached is the DCA Memo from the SOTF City Attorney for file no. 19108.

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: San Francisco City Attorney

Good Afternoon:

The Dennis Herrera, Elizabeth Coolbrith and the Office of the City Attorney have been named as Respondents in the attached complaint filed with the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force. Please respond to the following complaint/request within five business days.

The Respondent is required to submit a written response to the allegations including any and all supporting documents, recordings, electronic media, etc., to the Task Force within five (5) business days of receipt of this notice. This is your opportunity to provide a full explanation to allow the Task Force to be fully informed in considering your response prior its meeting.

Please include the following information in your response if applicable:

1. List all relevant records with descriptions that have been provided pursuant to the Complainant request.
2. Date the relevant records were provided to the Complainant.
3. Description of the method used, along with any relevant search terms used, to search for the relevant records.
4. Statement/declaration that all relevant documents have been provided, does not exist, or has been excluded.
5. Copy of the original request for records (if applicable).

Please refer to the File Number when submitting any new information and/or supporting documents pertaining to this complaint.

The Complainant alleges:

Complaint Attached.

Cheryl Leger

Assistant Clerk, Board of Supervisors

Tel: 415-554-7724

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

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

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

From: San Francisco City Attorney

Dear Anonymous: Attached is the City Attorney response to 20007 for your review. I just received it.

Cheryl Leger

From: San Francisco City Attorney

Dear SOTF Parties:

The agenda and packet for the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force February 5, 2020 - 4:00 p.m. meeting is online at the following link:
https://sfgov.org/sunshine/sites/default/files/sotf_020520_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: San Francisco City Attorney

Good Morning:

The City Attorney's Office has 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.

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: twitter.com/journo_anon Public Records Requester

RE: SOTF 20007 - Withdrawn. [PLEASE INCLUDE THIS EMAIL AND ATTACHMENTS IN THE FILE]

Based on the written representation of the City Attorney’s office attached as Exhibit A that they will record places and general statement of issues as part of their Prop G process going forward, I am withdrawing Complaint 20007.

To be clear, I maintain that Respondents did not comply with the Ordinance for the records in this complaint, but for efficiency I am withdrawing the complaint.

If in the future Herrera (or some future City Attorney) does not comply, I will allege a willful violation.

Sincerely,

Anonymous

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

  • EXHIBIT-A-Elizabeth-Coolbrith-Consent-Letter-20200207-FF.pdf

From: San Francisco City Attorney

I am in receipt of your document and have placed it into file No. 20007

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: San Francisco City Attorney

Good Morning:

You are receiving this notice because you are named as a Complainant or Respondent in one of the following complaints scheduled before the 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: September 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. 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. 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. 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. 19112: Complaint filed by Anonymous against Chief William Scott and Lt. R. Andrew Cox and the Police Department for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Sections 67.25, 67.26, 67.27, by failing to respond to an Immediate Disclosure Request in a timely and/or complete manner, failing to respond to a public records request in a timely and/or complete manner; failing to justify withholding of records and failing to maintain a Proposition G calendar.

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, August 26, 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.

Cheryl Leger

Assistant Clerk, Board of Supervisors

Tel: 415-554-7724

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

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

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

From: San Francisco City Attorney

John: Apologies, you are correct. No. 19108 was heard before the SOTF. I will remove it from the Agenda. Sorry about the confusion.

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

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

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

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

From: twitter.com/journo_anon Public Records Requester

Hi folks,

Re sotf 19108

To confirm this is before the whole SOTF and not Compliance, correct? If the agenda was for full SOTF yes please cancel it as it was already decided.
If it's going to Compliance then please don't cancel it.

--Anonymous

From: San Francisco City Attorney

Anonymous: This would have been before the SOTF, not Compliance. My mistake.

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
Warning An exclamation point.

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