Future Calendars and Meetings, Round 2 - Immediate Disclosure Request
It is a clone of this request.
| Submitted | Sept. 5, 2020 |
MuckRock users can file, duplicate, track, and share public records requests like this one. Learn more.
Communications
From: twitter.com/journo_anon Public Records Requester
Dennis Herrera and City Attorney's Office:
On Sept. 2, 2020, in SOTF 19112 Anonymous v. Scott, et al., SOTF found that SFPD violated, inter alia, SFAC 67.26 for not providing future/prospective calendars for Chief Scott at all (instead of with minimal redactions) and SFAC 67.27 for citing Prop G for withholding non-Prop G calendars. SFPD also stated during the hearing that SFPD has now changed its own position re: disclosure policies for calendars and will properly disclose future calendars and non-Prop G information, and they had determined that the advice of their Deputy City Attorneys to withhold future calendars or redact non-Prop G info was in fact wrong.
The agency and/or department head addressed in this request has previously and/or currently refuses to provide, at all, future calendars and/or non-Prop G calendars.
We will request these one more time, and if they are not provided, will allege intentional violation and official misconduct by your department head in light of the SOTF's decision in Anonymous v. Scott.
Therefore, this is an immediate disclosure request for all prospective/future calendars/scheduling records (with each Outlook invite or meeting provided as a separate record, not using the daily summary view, and showing all meeting details in Outlook, including all subject lines, body messages, attachments, images, attendees, attendance status, invitees, begin and end dates and times, recurrence, and other metadata) for your department head for Oct 8 through Oct 22, 2020 as the schedule exists at the time of this request (dates inclusive). Pursuant to SFAC 67.21(l), wherein you must provide any electronic format I request if it is either available or easily generated: please provide all electronic records in PDF format generated by Outlook's meeting/event details view *without* printing on physical paper and scanning. Rolling responses and exact copies of records are requested.
If you attempt to use Times-Mirror v Superior Court or Gov Code 6255(a), remember that it is the SOTF and courts (not you) that will judge whether or not the Mayor's sunshine suspension of SFAC 67.24(g,i) is valid, and if it is, whether the public interest in non-disclosure of a record clearly outweighs the public interest in disclosure.
Furthermore, Times-Mirror has two arguments which both rely on 6255(a) - a safety of the Governor part and a deliberative process part. The deliberative process privilege ban has been explictly preserved by the Mayor.
In SOTF 19103 Anonymous v. Breed re: the Mayor's future calendar, Mayoral Compliance Officer Heckel, while using Times-Mirror and GC 6254(f) as a defense, states "topics that were going to be discussed or something without any reference to date or times or places" may be provided - at the very least, we will expect your agency to provide that (though we do not concede that everything else is exempt).
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.
NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. 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.
Sincerely,
Anonymous
From: San Francisco City Attorney
Dear requester,
Thank you for your email. Please note the Immediate Disclosure Request process has been suspended due to the emergency and Mayoral order. We will get back to you with a formal response on a 10‐day timeline (09/17/2020) as to an estimated production date for the requested records.
Please use the following link for more information related to the Mayoral Proclamation on the temporary suspension of the Immediate Disclosure Request process: https://sfmayor.org/sites/default/files/SupplementalDeclaration2_03132020_stamped.pdf (p.3)
For further guidance related to eliminating the 10‐day production deadline for ordinary requests please use the following link: https://sfmayor.org/sites/default/files/032320_FifthSupplement.pdf (p.8‐9)
Please send replies to cityattorney@sfcityatty.org
Sincerely,
[signature_540561676]Odaya Buta
Legal Assistant
Office of City Attorney Dennis Herrera
(415) 554-5960 Direct
odaya.buta@sfcityatty.org<mailto:odaya.buta@sfcityatty.org>
www.sfcityattorney.org<applewebdata://354EB39C-2368-4201-BE40-DFCD2DA81691/www.sfcityattorney.org>
Find us on: Facebook<https://www.facebook.com/sfcityattorney/> Twitter<https://twitter.com/SFCityAttorney> Instagram<https://www.instagram.com/sfcityattorney/>
This message and any attachments are solely for the intended recipient and may include privileged or confidential information.
If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately, and permanently delete this message and any attachments.
-
image001
From: San Francisco City Attorney
Dear requester,
We need additional time to review the additional potentially responsive records, and currently expect to have our review complete by 09/28/20.
Thank you for your patience.
Please send replies to cityattorney@sfcityatty.org<mailto:cityattorney@sfcityatty.org>
Sincerely,
[signature_540561676]Odaya Buta
Legal Assistant
Office of City Attorney Dennis Herrera
www.sfcityattorney.org<applewebdata://354EB39C-2368-4201-BE40-DFCD2DA81691/www.sfcityattorney.org>
Find us on: Facebook<https://www.facebook.com/sfcityattorney/> Twitter<https://twitter.com/SFCityAttorney> Instagram<https://www.instagram.com/sfcityattorney/>
This message and any attachments are solely for the intended recipient and may include privileged or confidential information. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately, and permanently delete this message and any attachments.
-
image002
From: twitter.com/journo_anon Public Records Requester
Please provide records in a rolling fashion, namely pursuant to SFAC 67.25(d) each record should be produced "by the end of the same business day that they are reviewed and collected". Also, note that each calendar entry/meeting invite should be produced as linked here: https://cdn.muckrock.com/foia_files/2020/01/31/Memo_Style_45.pdf
This is Outlook Memo Style, and will allow you to redact some part of the PDF, but leave, at least, subject lines, meeting attendee lists and similar even if you decide to redact some other things in each meeting entry. If you produce the records using a daily or weekly view you will unlawfully withhold more than the minimal information.
From: Muckrock Staff
To Whom It May Concern:
I'm following up on the following California Public Records Act request, copied below, and originally submitted on Sept. 5, 2020. You had previously indicated that it would be completed on Sept. 17, 2020. I wanted to check on the status of my request, and to see if there was a new estimated completion date.
Thanks for your help, and let me know if further clarification is needed.
From: San Francisco City Attorney
Dear requester,
Thank you for your email. As mentioned in our previous email (dated 09/16/2020), you can expect to have our review completed by 09/28/20
Please note that it is possible that records (if we have any) will be privileged, but that we will confirm.
Thank you for your patience.
Sincerely,
[signature_540561676]Odaya Buta
Paralegal
Office of City Attorney Dennis Herrera
(415) 554-5960 Direct
odaya.buta@sfcityatty.org<mailto:odaya.buta@sfcityatty.org>
www.sfcityattorney.org<applewebdata://354EB39C-2368-4201-BE40-DFCD2DA81691/www.sfcityattorney.org>
Find us on: Facebook<https://www.facebook.com/sfcityattorney/> Twitter<https://twitter.com/SFCityAttorney> Instagram<https://www.instagram.com/sfcityattorney/>
This message and any attachments are solely for the intended recipient and may include privileged or confidential information.
If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately, and permanently delete this message and any attachments.
-
image001
From: twitter.com/journo_anon Public Records Requester
I will repeat my email of Sept. 16:
Please provide records in a rolling fashion, namely pursuant to SFAC 67.25(d) each record should be produced "by the end of the same business day that they are reviewed and collected". Also, note that each calendar entry/meeting invite should be produced as linked here: https://cdn.muckrock.com/foia_files/2020/01/31/Memo_Style_45.pdf
This is Outlook Memo Style, and will allow you to redact some part of the PDF, but leave, at least, subject lines, meeting attendee lists and similar even if you decide to redact some other things in each meeting entry. If you produce the records using a daily or weekly view you will unlawfully withhold more than the minimal information.
--Anonymous
From: San Francisco City Attorney
Dear requester,
We need additional time to review the additional potentially responsive records, and currently expect to have our review complete by the end of the week (10/02/20).
Thank you for your patience.
Please send replies to cityattorney@sfcityatty.org<mailto:cityattorney@sfcityatty.org>
Sincerely,
[signature_540561676]Odaya Buta
Paralegal
Office of City Attorney Dennis Herrera
www.sfcityattorney.org<applewebdata://354EB39C-2368-4201-BE40-DFCD2DA81691/www.sfcityattorney.org>
Find us on: Facebook<https://www.facebook.com/sfcityattorney/> Twitter<https://twitter.com/SFCityAttorney> Instagram<https://www.instagram.com/sfcityattorney/>
This message and any attachments are solely for the intended recipient and may include privileged or confidential information. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately, and permanently delete this message and any attachments.
-
image001
From: twitter.com/journo_anon Public Records Requester
We intend to file intentional violation complaints if the records are not provided strictly prior to Oct. 8. We picked those dates specifically to ensure you had enough time to produce what should not be a voluminous number of records, and the dates would still be in the future. It cannot take a month to produce 2 weeks of calendar entries.
--Anonymous
From: San Francisco City Attorney
Dear Requester,
We respectfully decline to share the calendar for the first two weeks of October at this time, as those dates are not yet past, based on Government Code section 6254(f), Evidence Code section 1040, and Times Mirror Company v. Superior Court, 53 Cal.3d 1325 (1991). If you would like to receive a copy of the calendar for those dates after they have passed, please submit another request at the appropriate time.
Sincerely,
[signature_540561676]Odaya Buta
Paralegal
Office of City Attorney Dennis Herrera
www.sfcityattorney.org<applewebdata://354EB39C-2368-4201-BE40-DFCD2DA81691/www.sfcityattorney.org>
Find us on: Facebook<https://www.facebook.com/sfcityattorney/> Twitter<https://twitter.com/SFCityAttorney> Instagram<https://www.instagram.com/sfcityattorney/>
This message and any attachments are solely for the intended recipient and may include privileged or confidential information. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately, and permanently delete this message and any attachments.
-
image001
From: twitter.com/journo_anon Public Records Requester
Willful violation complaints will be filed against Dennis Herrera and his office, based on SOTF Order 19112.
Sincerely,
Anonymous
From: twitter.com/journo_anon Public Records Requester
Supervisor of Records,
This is a 67.21(d) petition against Dennis Herrera and the City Attorney's Office.
On Sept. 5, I requested: " all prospective/future calendars/scheduling records (with each Outlook invite or meeting provided as a separate record, not using the daily summary view, and showing all meeting details in Outlook, including all subject lines, body messages, attachments, images, attendees, attendance status, invitees, begin and end dates and times, recurrence, and other metadata) for your department head for Oct 8 through Oct 22, 2020 as the schedule exists at the time of this request (dates inclusive). Pursuant to SFAC 67.21(l), wherein you must provide any electronic format I request if it is either available or easily generated: please provide all electronic records in PDF format generated by Outlook's meeting/event details view *without* printing on physical paper and scanning. Rolling responses and exact copies of records are requested."
On Oct 1, 2020, all records were withheld: "We respectfully decline to share the calendar for the first two weeks of October at this time, as those dates are not yet past, based on Government Code section 6254(f), Evidence Code section 1040, and Times Mirror Company v. Superior Court, 53 Cal.3d 1325 (1991). If you would like to receive a copy of the calendar for those dates after they have passed, please submit another request at the appropriate time."
Please determine that any part of these records are public and order them disclosed. In order to agree with the City Attorney's Office, pursuant to SFAC 67.26, you would have to agree that each and every word on the record was exempt under at least one of the 3 citations provided. The subject matter and attendees (i.e. a portion of the meeting entry records), esp. for virtual meetings, cannot possibly constitute a security record of a law enforcement agency (6254(f)) nor pose a physical threat to Herrera's security (Times Mirror). Furthermore Herrera could not have received *his own* records in confidence, so EC 1040 simply cannot apply.
A full communication record is available at: https://www.muckrock.com/foi/san-francisco-141/future-calendars-and-meetings-round-2-immediate-disclosure-request-101881/
Sincerely,
Anonymous
From: twitter.com/journo_anon Public Records Requester
Please file a New Complaint vs Dennis Herrera AND City Attorney's Office. I will also file a web form.
Complainant: Anonymous (this email)
Respondents: Dennis Herrera, City Attorney's Office
Violations: 67.21 (incomplete response), 67.26 (non-minimal withholding), 67.27 (inappropriate citation), 67.34 (willful violation and official misconduct)
Dennis Herrera willfully refuses to provide his future calendar entries with minimal redactions, after being warned about the Sept 2 ruling of the SOTF re: SFPD Chief Scott's future calendars.
They have cited: "We respectfully decline to share the calendar for the first two weeks of October at this time, as those dates are not yet past, based on Government Code section 6254(f), Evidence Code section 1040, and Times Mirror Company v. Superior Court, 53 Cal.3d 1325 (1991). If you would like to receive a copy of the calendar for those dates after they have passed, please submit another request at the appropriate time."
First, this is an incomplete response - they must provide the calendars and redact them, pursuant to SOTF 19112.
Second, they have failed to review each and every part of the record and determined which minimal parts of the records are exempt under which citation - violating 67.26.
Third, Times Mirror is not a permitted citation under 67.27. It is not a court case prohibiting the release or creating liability on the City for releasing this info, it merely permitted the Governor not to provide his past calendars. Dennis Herrera is not, contrary to his imagined beliefs, the Governor of California.
Furthermore, while the Mayor purports to unilaterally disable 67.24(g) and 67.24(i), she did not disable 67.24(h) - the deliberative process privilege. Times Mirror depends *both* on the physical security interest of the Governor and the deliberative process privilege. While Respondents could argue (but I do not concede) that the location of the City Attorney in the future may pose a security threat under Times Mirror (or under 6254(f), a security record of law enforcement IF AND ONLY IF Herrera receives police protection, which I am not aware of), that has no relevance for virtual meetings (which most are under COVID), and also has no relevance to withholding the subject matter, bodies, and attendees of future meetings. They withhold that information solely to prevent people from knowing what Herrera is considering - i.e. the deliberative process. But the deliberative process privilege is prohibited in San Francisco.
Furthermore, Evid Code 1040 has no relevance to this record because Herrera could not receive *his own* records in "confidence. " They are his records, not someone else's. Regardless, unless the meeting subject matter was regarding a confidential investigation, informant, or witness, no harm to "justice" would occur by disclosing the subject matter and attendees at a meeting in the future. EC 1040 is inapposite.
These violations are all willful violations because they were put on notice re: SOTF's decision in SOTF 19112.
The Respondent does not have the right under the Mayor's COVID orders or the Sunshine Ordinance to indefinitely delay a hearing in this matter.
If they refuse to respond, I invite the SOTF to proceed without them.
A full copy of the communications are attached.
Sincerely,
Anonymous
From: Muckrock Staff
To Whom It May Concern:
I'm following up on the following California Public Records Act request, copied below, and originally submitted on Sept. 5, 2020. You had previously indicated that it would be completed on Sept. 28, 2020. I wanted to check on the status of my request, and to see if there was a new estimated completion date.
Thanks for your help, and let me know if further clarification is needed.
From: San Francisco City Attorney
Good Afternoon:
Dennis Herrera and the City Attorney's Office have been named as Respondents in the attached complaint filed with the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force. Please respond to the attached 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.
-
image001
From: twitter.com/journo_anon Public Records Requester
Hi Ms. Leger,
The copy of the complaint you sent to the Respondents appears to be cut-off on the right-hand-side of the PDF, so they probably cannot read the full complaint.
Thanks,
Anonymous
From: San Francisco City Attorney
Anonymous: Thanks for your email. I just checked the Complaint and it appears fine.
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
20114, Page 3 is cutoff - see screenshot.
-
Screen20Shot202020-11-0220at209.31.2320AM.png
From: San Francisco City Attorney
Dear Ms. Leger,
Thank you for your email notifying the City Attorney's Office regarding the above-referenced complaint. We intend to submit a written response, as you have suggested. But I write to note that the deadline in your email is not accurate. On March 23, in the Mayor's Fifth Supplement to her Emergency Proclamation, the Mayor temporarily suspended deadlines for the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force to make determinations and for parties to submit information to the Task Force. The pertinent section of the Mayor's order is in section 7(e) on page 9 of this document<https://sfmayor.org/sites/default/files/032320_FifthSupplement.pdf>. Your email states that the City Attorney must submit a written response within five business days, but that deadline has been suspended by the Mayor while departments deploy resources for other purposes related to the emergency. In compliance with the Mayor's order, we will prepare and submit a response in the near future, but we will not be able to submit it within the five-day deadline mentioned in your email.
Sincerely,
[signature_540561676]Odaya Buta
Paralegal
Office of City Attorney Dennis Herrera
www.sfcityattorney.org<applewebdata://354EB39C-2368-4201-BE40-DFCD2DA81691/www.sfcityattorney.org>
Find us on: Facebook<https://www.facebook.com/sfcityattorney/> Twitter<https://twitter.com/SFCityAttorney> Instagram<https://www.instagram.com/sfcityattorney/>
This message and any attachments are solely for the intended recipient and may include privileged or confidential information. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately, and permanently delete this message and any attachments.
From: twitter.com/journo_anon Public Records Requester
SOTF, (File No. 20114)
Regardless of whether Respondents respond, and whether in 5 days or not, I urge you to hear the matter as you normally would.
While they have not argued as such here, these Respondents previously argued that SOTF necessarily cannot hear the matter without Respondents' response. On the Respondents' theory, Mr. Herrera can control the agenda of the SOTF by refusing to respond indefinitely.
I urge you to reject this.
The SOTF is not prohibited by law or order from continuing to hear cases - as the agenda is set by the Chair(s) and not the City respondents. No part of the Mayor's order prohibits the SOTF from hearing this or any other case without a City response. If Respondents don't wish to respond, that's their choice, and your task force should continue on without them. If the Mayor specifically wants to interfere with the SOTF's hearing of cases, she'll need to (attempt to) make such an order.
Sincerely,
Anonymous
From: Muckrock Staff
To Whom It May Concern:
I'm following up on the following California Public Records Act request, copied below, and originally submitted on Sept. 5, 2020. You had previously indicated that it would be completed on Sept. 28, 2020. I wanted to check on the status of my request, and to see if there was a new estimated completion date.
Thanks for your help, and let me know if further clarification is needed.
From: Muckrock Staff
To Whom It May Concern:
I'm following up on the following California Public Records Act request, copied below, and originally submitted on Sept. 5, 2020. You had previously indicated that it would be completed on Sept. 28, 2020. I wanted to check on the status of my request, and to see if there was a new estimated completion date.
Thanks for your help, and let me know if further clarification is needed.
From: twitter.com/journo_anon Public Records Requester
Happy Dec. 3 City Attorney's Office! (SOTF - please add to File 20114)
Just wanted you to know that SOTF unanimously ruled last night in 19103 Anonymous v Breed, et al. that Mayor Breed, Hank Heckel, and their Office violated SFAC 67.26 for withholding the entirety of Breed's future calendars (instead of minimally redacting the security procedures) and SFAC 67.27 for citing Times Mirror after their response to the request, and has specifically compelled them to comply.
If you're going to try Times Mirror again, good luck to you. And Heckel's argument that these can only be provided in a format that necessarily implicates security procedures was tried, and failed. Instead, you're going to have to minimally redact them - just as the law says!
I will request these one more time.
Please provide, as an immediate disclosure request, each of Herrera's prospective/planned Outlook calendar/meeting entry records (for all Herrera calendars, whether personal about the conduct of public business or government-owned, and whether Prop G or non-Prop G), in detailed form (including but not limited to the title, attendees, start/end date/time, location, attachments, images, and entry body/content, and every other part of the Outlook entry), where each Outlook entry is printed on a separate page ("Memo Style"), for every event scheduled from Jan 15 through Feb 1, 2021, as the records exist at the time you receive this request. You must provide rolling responses. I do not care about .ics files or metadata that is not visible on the detailed/Memo Style entry view in this request, but you are welcome to provide them if that is faster. You must minimally redact the "security procedures" of a "local police agency" pursuant to 6254(f) citation and provide all other words on the page (comply with 67.26). Since you've apparently been confused how to do this, I've provided you an hypothetical example attached of what one could have done with last time (without in any way conceding that all of that redacted info is in fact lawfully exempt). Note that this example would show exactly what you redacted, with a key for every redaction, so the SOTF can judge your compliance; in this hypothetical attached Breed example a staff phone number was Gov Code 6254(c), and the location of the meeting was Gov Code 6254(f). Forgive my iPad handwriting!
=====
Members of SOTF - if Herrera unreasonably delays full production or rolling responses, I urge you to reject their procedural hijinks and find Herrera in willful violation of the law. I've won this issue twice now, with the Mayor and the Police Chief. "Dennis Herrera said so" is no defense to the willful violation of the law.
Sincerely,
Anonymous
-
Screenshot202020-12-0320at2012.46.4120AM.png
From: twitter.com/journo_anon Public Records Requester
And by the way, CAO: Evid Code 1040 - also tried, and failed. Rule of reason? Tried and failed.
--Anonymous
From: San Francisco City Attorney
Dear Requester,
The City Attorney’s Office has received your new Sunshine Ordinance request on 12-03-20, and has begun a search for documents.
Please note that the Immediate Disclosure Request process is temporarily suspended, due to the emergency and Mayoral order. Please use the following link for more information: https://sfmayor.org/sites/default/files/SupplementalDeclaration2_03132020_stamped.pdf (p.3)
Please also note that the 10‐day production deadline for ordinary PRA requests has been suspended as well, due to the emergency and Mayoral order. Please use the following link for more information: https://sfmayor.org/sites/default/files/032320_FifthSupplement.pdf (p.8‐9)
We will get back to you with a formal response within 10 business days.
Sincerely,
[signature_540561676]Odaya Buta
Paralegal
Office of City Attorney Dennis Herrera
(415) 554-5960 Direct
odaya.buta@sfcityatty.org<mailto:odaya.buta@sfcityatty.org>
www.sfcityattorney.org<applewebdata://354EB39C-2368-4201-BE40-DFCD2DA81691/www.sfcityattorney.org>
Find us on: Facebook<https://www.facebook.com/sfcityattorney/> Twitter<https://twitter.com/SFCityAttorney> Instagram<https://www.instagram.com/sfcityattorney/>
This message and any attachments are solely for the intended recipient and may include privileged or confidential information.
If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately, and permanently delete this message and any attachments.
-
image001
From: San Francisco City Attorney
Dear requester,
I am responding on behalf of the City Attorney's Office to your below 09-05-20 records request. Attached please find the responsive records.
Please send replies to cityattorney@sfcityatty.org<mailto:cityattorney@sfcityatty.org>
Sincerely,
[signature_540561676]Odaya Buta
Paralegal
Office of City Attorney Dennis Herrera
www.sfcityattorney.org<applewebdata://354EB39C-2368-4201-BE40-DFCD2DA81691/www.sfcityattorney.org>
Find us on: Facebook<https://www.facebook.com/sfcityattorney/> Twitter<https://twitter.com/SFCityAttorney> Instagram<https://www.instagram.com/sfcityattorney/>
This message and any attachments are solely for the intended recipient and may include privileged or confidential information. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately, and permanently delete this message and any attachments.
-
image001
From: twitter.com/journo_anon Public Records Requester
Thank you for the production 3 months after I requested it.
Are these the records as they existed at the time I requested them?
If you made them after I requested them they are not responsive records.
--Anonymous
From: San Francisco City Attorney
Dear requester,
We thank you for your patience. Kindly note that our office respectfully decline to share the calendar dates you requested for 01/15/2021- 02/01/2021 at this time, as those dates are not yet past, based on Government Code section 6254(f), Evidence Code section 1040, and Times Mirror Company v. Superior Court, 53 Cal.3d 1325 (1991). If you would like to receive a copy of the calendar for those dates after they have passed, please submit another request at the appropriate time.
Sincerely,
[signature_540561676]Odaya Buta
Paralegal
Office of City Attorney Dennis Herrera
(415) 554-5960 Direct
odaya.buta@sfcityatty.org<mailto:odaya.buta@sfcityatty.org>
www.sfcityattorney.org<applewebdata://354EB39C-2368-4201-BE40-DFCD2DA81691/www.sfcityattorney.org>
Find us on: Facebook<https://www.facebook.com/sfcityattorney/> Twitter<https://twitter.com/SFCityAttorney> Instagram<https://www.instagram.com/sfcityattorney/>
This message and any attachments are solely for the intended recipient and may include privileged or confidential information.
If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately, and permanently delete this message and any attachments.
-
image002
From: twitter.com/journo_anon Public Records Requester
Pursuant to your recent response after SOTF Order 19103, are you willing to change your response to this request and this complaint 20014?
From: twitter.com/journo_anon Public Records Requester
Correction:
Pursuant to your recent response after SOTF Order 19103, are you willing to change your response to this request and this complaint 20114?
From: San Francisco City Attorney
Dear requester,
I am responding on behalf of the City Attorney's Office to your below request for records. Attached please find the responsive records. Please note we have redacted confidential information on pages 12 and 37 based on based on Government Code section 6254(f), Evidence Code section 1040, and Times Mirror Company v. Superior Court, 53 Cal.3d 1325 (1991).
Please send replies to cityattorney@sfcityatty.org<mailto:cityattorney@sfcityatty.org>
Best,
[image010]Elizabeth A. Coolbrith
Paralegal
Office of City Attorney Dennis Herrera
(415) 554-4685 Direct
www.sfcityattorney.org
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
-
~WRD001
From: San Francisco City Attorney
Dear Ms. Kwart: Attached please find an Affirmation letter regarding case no. 20114 for your review and response.
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.
-
image001
From:
Hi Cheryl,
Our response to the affirmation letter for complaint 20114 is attached.
Thank you,
[logo_cityattorney]Jen Kwart (she/her)
Director of Communications & Media Relations
Office of City Attorney David Chiu
(415) 554-4662 Direct | (714) 749-2001 Cell
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
Good Afternoon:
Notice is hereby given that the Complaint Committee (Committee) of the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force (Task Force) shall hold hearings on complaints listed below to: 1) determine if the Task Force has jurisdiction; 2) review the merits of the complaints; and/or 3) issue a report and/or recommendation to the Task Force. Please confirm your attendance for this hearing.
Date: August 16, 2022
Location: Remote Meeting
Time: 5:30 p.m.
Complainants: Your attendance is required for this meeting/hearing.
Respondents/Departments: Pursuant to Section 67.21 (e) of the Ordinance, the custodian of records or a representative of your department, who can speak to the matter, is required at the meeting/hearing.
1. File No. 22082: Complaint filed by Michael Petrelis against the Department of Public Health for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Section(s) 67.21, by failing to respond for public records in a timely and/or complete manner.
2. File No. 22083: Complaint filed by Sophia De Anda against the Mayor’s Office of Housing and Community Development (MOHCD) for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Section(s) 67.21, by failing to respond for public records in a timely and/or complete manner.
3. File No. 22084: Complaint filed by Stiliyan Bezhanski against Debra Lew and the Office of the Treasurer and Tax Collector for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Section(s) 67.21 and 67.25, and California Government Code, Section(s) 6253(c), by failing to respond to an Immediate Disclosure Request in a timely and/or complete manner.
4. File No. 20113: Complaint filed by Anonymous (ARE) against Mayor London Breed, Hank Heckel, and the Office of the Mayor for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Sections 67.21 by failing to respond to a records request in a timely and/or complete manner; 67.26, by failing to keep withholding to a minimum; 67.27 failing to provide justification for withholding; and 67.34 for willful failure.
5. File No. 20114: Complaint filed by Anonymous (ARE) against the Dennis Herrera and the City Attorney’s Office for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Section 67.21 failing to respond to a records request in a complete and timely manner; 67.26 failure to keep withholding to a minimum; 67.27 failure to justify withholding; 67.34 willful failure and official misconduct.
6. File No. 20121: Complaint filed by Anonymous (ARE) against the Paul Miyamoto, Alison Lambert and the Sheriff’s Office for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Sections 67.21(a) by failing to provide records without unreasonable delay, 67.21(b) by failing to provide a timely and complete response, 67.21(k) by violating the CPRA incorporated by reference into the Sunshine Ordinance, 67.25(d) by failing to provide rolling responses; 67.26 by failing to keep withholding to a minimum; 67.27 by failing to justify withholding in writing and 67.34 for official misconduct.
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 9:00 am, August 12, 2022.
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.
-
image001
From: San Francisco City Attorney
Good Afternoon:
The agenda and packet of the Complaint Committee of the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force August 16, 2022, 5:30 p.m. meeting is online at the following link:
https://sfgov.org/sunshine/sites/default/files/complaint_081622_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
<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.
-
image001
From: San Francisco City Attorney
Hello,
Thanks for the message.
I will participate virtually on Tuesday.
Michael
Sent from the all new AOL app for Android
-
image001
Files
pages