Immediate Disclosure Request - FAMSF/COFAM/FAMF Relationship

twitter.com/journo_anon filed this request with the Fine Arts Museums Of San Francisco of San Francisco, CA.
Est. Completion Oct. 7, 2019
Status
Partially Completed
Tags

Communications

From: twitter.com/journo_anon

To Whom It May Concern:

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

Pursuant to the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, I hereby request the following records as 6 Immediate Discloure Requests from your agency, from COFAM, and from FAMF:
1. all legal/contractual relationships between your agency (or the City as a whole) and Corporation of the Fine Arts Museums of San Francisco (COFAM)
2. all legal/contractual relationships between your agency (or the City as a whole) and Fine Arts Museums Foundation (FAMF)
3. all records of how city employees use IT systems owned or operated by FAMF and/or COFAM
4. all records of how city employees retain records owned, used, or prepared by the city agency, but stored on IT systems owned or operated by FAMF and/or COFAM
5. the last 10 emails from , and the last 10 emails to, Diane B. Wilsey, President, on their official AND personal email (under City of San Jose v Superior Court (2017)) re: the public's business
6. the last 10 emails from , and the last 10 emails to, Belva Davis, Vice President, on their official AND personal email (under City of San Jose v Superior Court (2017)) re: the public's business

We remind you of your obligations to provide electronic records in any format we request them in, as long that format is available to you OR easy to generate (Admin Code 67.21(l)). Therefore, emails exported in the .eml or .msg format with all non-exempt headers, metadata, attachments, etc. are best.

If you choose to convert documents, for example, to PDF or printed format (even though we have specifically requested .eml or .msg formats), to easily redact them, you must still ensure that you have preserved the full content of the original conversation record, which contains many detailed headers beyond the generally used From/To/Subject/Sent/etc.

If you send PDFs, please use only text/search PDFs, not images.

If on the City Attorney's advice or for other reasons, you redact portions of the metadata/headers, please specifically justify each such redaction with a legal citation (statute, ordinance, or case law).

If you provide PDFs or printed conversations or give us only a few of the headers or exclude attachments/images, and therefore withhold the other headers/attachments without proper justification, you may be in violation of SF Admin Code 67.21, 67.26, 67.27, Govt Code 6253(a), 6253.9, and/or 6255, and we may challenge your decision in court, before the Supervisor of Records, and/or the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force. I have various cases proceeding before the SOTF and Sup. of Records, and intend to vigourously enforce the public's right to record disclosure.

Please provide only those copies of records available without any fees. If you determine certain records would require fees, please instead provide the required (free) notice of which of those records are available and non-exempt for inspection in-person if we so choose.

Remember you must inform us whether there are are no responsive records, some fully disclosed records, some fully withheld records, or some partially disclosed/partially withheld/redacted records for each of the individual requests.

Sincerely,

Anonymous

From:

Thank you for your message.
I am on a leave of absence until further notice.
For acquisitions related matters, please contact Lexi Paulson at lpaulson@famsf.org (mailto:lpaulson@famsf.org)
For board of trustee related matters, please contact Melissa Powers at mpowers@famsf.org (mailto:mpowers@famsf.org)

Kind regards,
Skot Jonz
Executive Assistant and Project Assistant
Fine Arts Museums of San Francisco
San Francisco, CA 94118
p 415.750.2635

--
Skot Jonz
Executive Assistant and Project Assistant

Fine Arts Museums of San Francisco
de Young | Legion of Honor
Golden Gate Park | 50 Hagiwara Tea Garden Drive
San Francisco, CA 94118

p 415.750.2635 | sjonz@famsf.org | (mailto:sjonz@famsf.org) famsf.org (http://famsf.org)

From: twitter.com/journo_anon

To Whom It May Concern:

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

Pursuant to the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, I hereby request the following records as 6 Immediate Discloure Requests from your agency, from COFAM, and from FAMF:
1. all legal/contractual relationships between your agency (or the City as a whole) and Corporation of the Fine Arts Museums of San Francisco (COFAM)
2. all legal/contractual relationships between your agency (or the City as a whole) and Fine Arts Museums Foundation (FAMF)
3. all records of how city employees use IT systems owned or operated by FAMF and/or COFAM
4. all records of how city employees retain records owned, used, or prepared by the city agency, but stored on IT systems owned or operated by FAMF and/or COFAM
5. the last 10 emails from , and the last 10 emails to, Diane B. Wilsey, President, on their official AND personal email (under City of San Jose v Superior Court (2017)) re: the public's business
6. the last 10 emails from , and the last 10 emails to, Belva Davis, Vice President, on their official AND personal email (under City of San Jose v Superior Court (2017)) re: the public's business

We remind you of your obligations to provide electronic records in any format we request them in, as long that format is available to you OR easy to generate (Admin Code 67.21(l)). Therefore, emails exported in the .eml or .msg format with all non-exempt headers, metadata, attachments, etc. are best.

If you choose to convert documents, for example, to PDF or printed format (even though we have specifically requested .eml or .msg formats), to easily redact them, you must still ensure that you have preserved the full content of the original conversation record, which contains many detailed headers beyond the generally used From/To/Subject/Sent/etc.

If you send PDFs, please use only text/search PDFs, not images.

If on the City Attorney's advice or for other reasons, you redact portions of the metadata/headers, please specifically justify each such redaction with a legal citation (statute, ordinance, or case law).

If you provide PDFs or printed conversations or give us only a few of the headers or exclude attachments/images, and therefore withhold the other headers/attachments without proper justification, you may be in violation of SF Admin Code 67.21, 67.26, 67.27, Govt Code 6253(a), 6253.9, and/or 6255, and we may challenge your decision in court, before the Supervisor of Records, and/or the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force. I have various cases proceeding before the SOTF and Sup. of Records, and intend to vigourously enforce the public's right to record disclosure.

Please provide only those copies of records available without any fees. If you determine certain records would require fees, please instead provide the required (free) notice of which of those records are available and non-exempt for inspection in-person if we so choose.

Remember you must inform us whether there are are no responsive records, some fully disclosed records, some fully withheld records, or some partially disclosed/partially withheld/redacted records for each of the individual requests.

Sincerely,

Anonymous

From: Fine Arts Museums Of San Francisco

Dear Sir/Madam,

The Fine Arts Museums of San Francisco received your Immediate Disclosure
Request, dated September 7, 2019, on September 10. 2019. You have
requested the following records:

“Pursuant to the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, I hereby request the
following records as 6 Immediate Disclosure Requests from your agency, from
COFAM, and from FAMF:

1. All legal/contractual relationships between your agency (or the City as
a whole) and Corporation of the Fine Arts Museums of San Francisco (COFAM)
2. All legal/contractual relationships between your agency (or the City as
a whole) and Fine Arts Museums Foundation (FAMF)
3. All records of how city employees use IT systems owned or operated by
FAMF and/or COFAM
4. All records of how city employees retain records owned, used, or
prepared by the city agency, but stored on IT systems owned or operated by
FAMF and/or COFAM
5. The last 10 emails from, and the last 10 emails to, Diane B. Wilsey,
President, on their official AND personal email (under City of San Jose v
Superior Court (2017)) re: the public's business
6. The last 10 emails from, and the last 10 emails to, Belva Davis, Vice
President, on their official AND personal email (under City of San Jose v
Superior Court (2017)) re: the public's business”

On behalf of the City Department, the Fine Arts Museums of San Francisco
(FAMSF), please find attached the document responsive to request 1 and 2
(FAMSF Board Resolution of January 2018). The FAMSF does not have records
responsive to requests 3 and 4.

As for records request 5 and 6, although you labeled your requests as an
Immediate Disclosure Request, it is not “simple, routine, or otherwise
readily answerable,” as is required by San Francisco Administrative Code
Section 67.25(a). For this reason, FAMSF is treating your IDR as a
standard public records request, subject to the normally applicable 10 days
response time, with a possible extension. Accordingly, FAMSF will be in
touch with you regarding these records no later than September 20, 2019.
However, FAMSF will endeavor to fulfill your request as soon as possible.

Thank you,

On behalf of FAMSF,
Melissa Powers
Manager of Board Relations and Special Projects

Fine Arts Museums of San Francisco
de Young
Legion of Honor

Golden Gate Park | 50 Hagiwara Tea Garden Drive | San Francisco, CA 94118
p 415.750.3690
e mpowers@famsf.org | famsf.org

From: twitter.com/journo_anon

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

I want to be certain I understand your response. The entirety of ALL contracts between the City agency and COFAM or FAMF is a 1-page memorandum of understanding with no detail whatsoever? There are literally no other legal agreements?

From: Fine Arts Museums Of San Francisco

Dear Sir/Madam,
Your request was interpreted to capture current, legal agreements.
However, I am attaching a 2002 agreement between CCSF, through the FAMSF
Board of Trustees, and FAMF, which is no longer effective.
Thank you,
On behalf of FAMSF,
Melissa Powers
Manager of Board Relations and Special Projects

Fine Arts Museums of San Francisco
de Young
Legion of Honor

Golden Gate Park | 50 Hagiwara Tea Garden Drive | San Francisco, CA 94118
p 415.750.3690
e mpowers@famsf.org | famsf.org

From: twitter.com/journo_anon

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

I have seen the various numerous arguments your agency has had with Mr. Smith before the SOTF. I have no idea why the relationship between a city agency and COFAM and FAMF is simultaneously so interlocked/complex but also completely non-transparent, and I will be taking a fresh look at forcing the city to legally turn over all public records associated with this relationship, no matter where they are, whether at the Task Force or in Superior Court.

Keep in mind you must turn over all documents prepared, owned, used, OR retained by your agency. So if the City ever prepared or used the records, you must turn them over whether or not they are owned or retained by your agency (as it appears you seem to believe FAMF/COFAM own or retain them instead of you). City of San Jose vs Superior Court (2017) is very clear that individual employees cannot shield records from disclosure by putting them on private property; there is no way that entire corporations can shield public records from disclosure by putting them on private property.

This is a further IMMEDIATE DISCLOSURE REQUEST from FAMSF, from FAMF, and from COFAM:
1. full employee directory with name, title, and email of all FAMSF employees
2. full employee directory with name, title, and email of all FAMF employees
3. full employee directory with name, title, and email of all COFAM employees
4. full officer/board/trustees directory with name, title, and email of all FAMSF officers/board/trustees
5. full officer/board/trustees directory with name, title, and email of all FAMF officers/board/trustees
6. full officer/board/trustees directory with name, title, and email of all COFAM officers/board/trustees

If any FAMSF city employee possesses any of the records about FAMF or COFAM employees/officers you must turn them over.
The relevant question is NOT what the content or topic of the records is - the only issue is whether the City prepared, owned, used, or retained the records. If any City employee has used any of this information you must turn it over.

Thanks,
Anonymous

From: twitter.com/journo_anon

Supervisor of Records,

Attached is a new SFAC 67.21(d) petition against FAMSF.

Thanks,
Anonymous

From: twitter.com/journo_anon

Good Morning Supervisor of Records,

You may disregard the petition #79999 sent late last night from this email address (79999-SupervisorPetition-20190912-b.pdf), and replace it with the attached amended one (79999-SupervisorPetition-20190912-rev2.pdf).

Thanks,
Anonymous

From: twitter.com/journo_anon

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

First, I have attached as a courtesy a Sup. of Records petition filed earlier today against your agency FAMSF. I intend to appeal any of your records withholdings or failure to provide records under the guise that they are COFAM or FAMF records at every available level of remedy, whether Sup. of Records, SOTF, or Superior Court.

Second, this is a yet further set of IMMEDIATE DISCLOSURE REQUESTS for each of the following, from each of FAMSF, COFAM, and FAMF:
a) all correspondence (including all attachments, exhibits, memos, metadata, headers, emails, physical mail/notes, text, SMS, MMS, or any chat app messages, and in their original electronic format or scan of physical documents) between FAMSF* (the asterisk here and below means this request includes each and every employee, board member, or officer in addition to the entity as a whole, and also requires a City of San Jose v Superior Court (2017) search of private property for records re: the public's business) and Robert M. Smith between Jan. 1, 2018 and Sept. 12 2019 (inclusive)
b) all correspondence (including all attachments, exhibits, memos, metadata, headers, emails, physical mail/notes, text, SMS, MMS, or any chat app messages, and in their original electronic format or scan of physical documents) between COFAM* and Mr. Smith between Jan. 1, 2018 and Sept. 12 2019 (inclusive)
c) all correspondence (including all attachments, exhibits, memos, metadata, headers, emails, physical mail/notes, text, SMS, MMS, or any chat app messages, and in their original electronic format or scan of physical documents) between FAMF* and Mr. Smith between Jan. 1, 2018 and Sept. 12 2019 (inclusive)
d) all correspondence (including all attachments, exhibits, memos, metadata, headers, emails, physical mail/notes, text, SMS, MMS, or any chat app messages, and in their original electronic format or scan of physical documents) between FAMSF* and COFAM* re: {Mr. Smith or his requests/complaints, or the Sunshine Ordinance, or CPRA} between Jan. 1, 2018 and Sept. 12 2019 (inclusive). Use the following case insensitive query: "smith" OR "cpra" OR "sunshine"
e) all correspondence between FAMSF* and FAMF* re: {Mr. Smith or his requests/complaints, or the Sunshine Ordinance, or CPRA} Jan. 1, 2018 and Sept. 12 2019 (inclusive). Use the following case insensitive query: "smith" OR "cpra" OR "sunshine"
f) all correspondence (including all attachments, exhibits, memos, metadata, headers, emails, physical mail/notes, text, SMS, MMS, or any chat app messages, and in their original electronic format or scan of physical documents) between FAMSF* and the City Attorney's office* or Sup. of Records' office*, between Jan. 1, 2018 and Sept. 12 2019 (inclusive). I anticipate you may use Attorney-Client privilege as a shield here. However: the City has waived the privilege if you already provided any of these communications to anyone else, whether that anyone is Mr. Smith or private entities COFAM or FAMF. If you waived the privilege by providing the record to member of the public Mr. Smith, that record is now permanently a public record and you must also give it to me (Gov Code 6254.5). If FAMF or COFAM or their employees have the purportedly privileged communication (for example by including them in an email thead or cc-ing or bcc-ing or forwarding the message to them), you also have waived the privilege and must provide me the documents. If the City's argument for privilege is that the City Attorney is also representing FAMF or COFAM, then also produce records of such a contract (your MOU says no such thing) and every associated invoice (which is not protected by privilege). If no such contract exists, and the representation is provided for free by the City to these private entities, a variety of other statutes regarding use of public funds for a private purpose may be in play.
g) all correspondence (including all attachments, exhibits, memos, metadata, headers, emails, physical mail/notes, text, SMS, MMS, or any chat app messages, and in their original electronic format or scan of physical documents) between COFAM* and the City Attorney's office* or Sup. of Records' office*, between Jan. 1, 2018 and Sept. 12 2019 (inclusive).
h) all correspondence (including all attachments, exhibits, memos, metadata, headers, emails, physical mail/notes, text, SMS, MMS, or any chat app messages, and in their original electronic format or scan of physical documents) between FAMF* and the City Attorney's office* or Sup. of Records' office*, between Jan. 1, 2018 and Sept. 12 2019 (inclusive).

I would like to remind you that you need to indicate for each request above and in all our messages, whether you did or did not have responsive records (separate from whether or not you withheld them). Remember any record retained, owned, used, or prepared by FAMSF must be included. If a city employee possesses a COFAM or FAMF document, you must disclose it. If COFAM or FAMF are holding records prepared or used by FAMSF, you must disclose it. You also must justify each and every withholding or redaction with particularity. Use footnotes or inline markings for example.

At this point you have #5 and #6 from the Sept. 10 requests, the employee directories from earlier today, and these 8 requests above in the pipeline.

We remind you of your obligations to provide electronic records in any format we request them in, as long that format is available to you OR easy to generate (Admin Code 67.21(l)). Therefore, emails exported in the .eml or .msg format with all non-exempt headers, metadata, attachments, etc. are best.

If you choose to convert documents, for example, to PDF or printed format (even though we have specifically requested .eml or .msg formats), to easily redact them, you must still ensure that you have preserved the full content of the original conversation record, which contains many detailed headers beyond the generally used From/To/Subject/Sent/etc.

If you send PDFs, please use only text/search PDFs, not image/scanned PDFs. You must make exact copies of records under the CPRA - do not exclude color, formatting, images, or any other content that may be lost by printing and scanning records incorrectly.

If on the City Attorney's advice or for other reasons, you redact portions of the records, please specifically justify each such redaction with a legal citation (statute, ordinance, or case law). If you withhold metadata/headers, even if you don't visually redact them, you are still withholding and must justify it. If you provide PDFs or printed conversations or give us only a few of the headers or exclude attachments/images, and therefore withhold the other headers/attachments without proper justification, you may be in violation of SF Admin Code 67.21, 67.26, 67.27, Govt Code 6253(a), 6253.9, and/or 6255, and we may challenge your decision in court, before the Supervisor of Records, and/or the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force.

In all cases, please provide only those copies of records available without any fees. If you determine certain records would require fees, please instead provide the required (free) notice of which of those records are available and non-exempt for inspection in-person if we so choose.

Thanks,
Anonymous

From: twitter.com/journo_anon

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

This is a yet further 3 immediate disclosure requests, from FAMSF, from COFAM, and from FAMF for:
1) the SB 272/ Gov Code 6270.5 enterprise systems catalog for FAMSF you are required to create and disclose. Please provide a copy in PDF or spreadsheet format; do not provide a URL.
2) the SB 272/ Gov Code 6270.5 enterprise systems catalog for COFAM you are required to create and disclose. Please provide a copy in PDF or spreadsheet format; do not provide a URL.
3) the SB 272/ Gov Code 6270.5 enterprise systems catalog for FAMF you are required to create and disclose. Please provide a copy in PDF or spreadsheet format; do not provide a URL.

I would like to remind you that you need to indicate for each request above and in all our messages, whether you did or did not have responsive records (separate from whether or not you withheld them). Remember any record retained, owned, used, or prepared by FAMSF must be included. If a city employee possesses a COFAM or FAMF document, you must disclose it. If COFAM or FAMF are holding records prepared or used by FAMSF, you must disclose it. You also must justify each and every withholding or redaction with particularity. Use footnotes or inline markings for example.

We remind you of your obligations to provide electronic records in any format we request them in, as long that format is available to you OR easy to generate (Admin Code 67.21(l)).

If you send PDFs, please use only text/search PDFs, not image/scanned PDFs. You must make exact copies of records under the CPRA - do not exclude color, formatting, images, or any other content that may be lost by printing and scanning records incorrectly.

If on the City Attorney's advice or for other reasons, you redact portions of the records, please specifically justify each such redaction with a legal citation (statute, ordinance, or case law). If you withhold metadata/headers, even if you don't visually redact them, you are still withholding and must justify it. If you provide PDFs or printed conversations or give us only a few of the headers or exclude attachments/images, and therefore withhold the other headers/attachments without proper justification, you may be in violation of SF Admin Code 67.21, 67.26, 67.27, Govt Code 6253(a), 6253.9, and/or 6255, and we may challenge your decision in court, before the Supervisor of Records, and/or the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force.

In all cases, please provide only those copies of records available without any fees. If you determine certain records would require fees, please instead provide the required (free) notice of which of those records are available and non-exempt for inspection in-person if we so choose.

Sincerely,
Anonymous

From: twitter.com/journo_anon

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

This is a yet further 3 immediate disclosure requests, from FAMSF, from COFAM, and from FAMF for:
1) a record of FAMSF "transactions" for the period April 2019 to June 2019 (Q2), within the meaning of SFAC 67.29-7(c): “In any contract, agreement or permit between the City and any outside entity that authorizes that entity to demand any funds or fees from citizens, the City shall ensure that accurate records of each transaction are maintained in a professional and businesslike manner and are available to the public as public records under the provisions of this ordinance.”
2) a record of COFAM "transactions" for the period April 2019 to June 2019 (Q2), within the meaning of SFAC 67.29-7(c):
3) a record of FAMF "transactions" for the period April 2019 to June 2019 (Q2), within the meaning of SFAC 67.29-7(c):

I would like to remind you that you need to indicate for each request above and in all our messages, whether you did or did not have responsive records (separate from whether or not you withheld them). Remember any record retained, owned, used, or prepared by FAMSF must be included. If a city employee possesses a COFAM or FAMF document, you must disclose it. If COFAM or FAMF are holding records prepared or used by FAMSF, you must disclose it. You also must justify each and every withholding or redaction with particularity. Use footnotes or inline markings for example.

We remind you of your obligations to provide electronic records in any format we request them in, as long that format is available to you OR easy to generate (Admin Code 67.21(l)). Our preference is spreadsheets or text PDFs.

If you send PDFs, please use only text/search PDFs, not image/scanned PDFs. You must make exact copies of records under the CPRA - do not exclude color, formatting, images, or any other content that may be lost by printing and scanning records incorrectly.

If on the City Attorney's advice or for other reasons, you redact portions of the records, please specifically justify each such redaction with a legal citation (statute, ordinance, or case law). If you withhold metadata/headers, even if you don't visually redact them, you are still withholding and must justify it. If you provide PDFs or printed conversations or give us only a few of the headers or exclude attachments/images, and therefore withhold the other headers/attachments without proper justification, you may be in violation of SF Admin Code 67.21, 67.26, 67.27, Govt Code 6253(a), 6253.9, and/or 6255, and we may challenge your decision in court, before the Supervisor of Records, and/or the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force.

In all cases, please provide only those copies of records available without any fees. If you determine certain records would require fees, please instead provide the required (free) notice of which of those records are available and non-exempt for inspection in-person if we so choose.

Sincerely,
Anonymous

From: twitter.com/journo_anon

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

Please see the attached immediate disclosure request letter superseding my prior requests, with consistent numbering for your convenien.

From: Fine Arts Museums Of San Francisco

Sir/Madam,
In response to your letter, please see the attached for itemized answers.
On behalf of FAMSF,
Melissa Powers
Manager of Board Relations and Special Projects

Fine Arts Museums of San Francisco
de Young
Legion of Honor

Golden Gate Park | 50 Hagiwara Tea Garden Drive | San Francisco, CA 94118
p 415.750.3690
e mpowers@famsf.org | famsf.org

From: twitter.com/journo_anon

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

A formal complaint will be filed shortly regarding the City's withholding of documents.

Please note that you have until Sept. 17 and 19 to provide your statement re: existence/non-existence, quantity, form of each set of records requested, even if you believe the contents are exempt (see SFAC 67.21(c)).

Also, I am not asking you to answer on behalf of COFAM or FAMF. But if FAMSF prepared, owned, used, or retained any of those communications between COFAM and FAMF and other parties (for example, if any City employee was forwarded any of those, or CC-ed them, or has any copy of them), you must disclose them. Please read the definition of a "public record" in CPRA. You did not actually state that there were no responsive records, merely that you will not respond for other entities, which makes me quite suspicious.

Finally, not all of your communications with the City Attorney are privileged. I believe you have shared some of them with Mr. Smith and/or COFAM or FAMF. If so, you have waived the privilege, and I am owed those documents.

Thanks,
Anonymous

From: Fine Arts Museums Of San Francisco

Sir/Madam,

In response to your request under 67.21(c)), for items 1-6, for your
request of September 10:

- For requests 1-4: 67.21(c) was satisfied with our response on September
11.

- For requests: 5-6: There are no official email accounts for Diane Wilsey
and Belva Davis. However, FAMSF has identified 10 responsive emails re:
public's business from and to

Mrs. Wilsey's personal account and to Belva Davis. We are still conducting
a review to identify 10 from Ms. Davis. We will provide available,
responsive documents on Friday, September 20.

Thank you,
Melissa Powers
Manager of Board Relations and Special Projects

Fine Arts Museums of San Francisco
de Young
Legion of Honor

Golden Gate Park | 50 Hagiwara Tea Garden Drive | San Francisco, CA 94118
p 415.750.3690
e mpowers@famsf.org | famsf.org

From: twitter.com/journo_anon

Thank you very much.

From: Fine Arts Museums Of San Francisco

Sir/Madam,

In response to your request under 67.21(c)):

Requests 7-12: 67.21(c) was satisfied on September 13.
Request 13: FAMSF has responsive records in the form of emails and
attachments, to Mr. Smith and emails from Mr. Smith. Please provide a
mailing address so FAMSF can send you a thumbdrive containing responsive
material (in the thousands).
Requests 14-15: FAMSF does not have responsive records
Request 16: FAMSF has responsive records in the form of emails.
Requests 17: FAMSF does not have responsive records
Request 18: FAMSF is withholding records based on attorney/client
privilege.
Requests 19-20: FAMSF does not have responsive records
Request 21: 67.21(c) was satisfied on September 13.
Requests 22-23: FAMSF does not have responsive records
Request 24: 67.21(c) was satisfied on September 13
Request 25-26: FAMSF does not have responsive records

Thank you,
On behalf of FAMSF,
Melissa Powers
Manager of Board Relations and Special Projects

Fine Arts Museums of San Francisco
de Young
Legion of Honor

Golden Gate Park | 50 Hagiwara Tea Garden Drive | San Francisco, CA 94118
p 415.750.3690
e mpowers@famsf.org | famsf.org

From: twitter.com/journo_anon

This is not a conforming response under 67.21c

> Request 18: FAMSF is withholding records based on attorney/client
privilege.

From: Fine Arts Museums Of San Francisco

Sir/Ma'am,

Please find documents responsive to requests 5 and 6. Redactions were made
on the basis of privacy. Authority: Cal. Const. Art. 1 § 1; Cal. Govt.
Code § 6254(c); San Francisco Admin. Code § 67.1(g); San Francisco Admin
Code Chapter 12M.2.

As far as 67.21(c) for request 18, yes, there are responsive records in the
form of emails. As stated, they are being withheld on basis of attorney
client privilege.

Thank you.

On behalf of FAMSF,
Melissa Powers
Manager of Board Relations and Special Projects

Fine Arts Museums of San Francisco
de Young
Legion of Honor

Golden Gate Park | 50 Hagiwara Tea Garden Drive | San Francisco, CA 94118
p 415.750.3690
e mpowers@famsf.org | famsf.org

Warning An exclamation point.

There are too many files to display on this communication. See all files

From: twitter.com/journo_anon

Thank you for the additional documents and for noting redaction justifications with particularity in them.
However, even the most basic metadata is missing from these records. You may follow-along with how the full SOTF rules on electronic metadata on Oct. 2. We will be petitioning that information as well -- please do not destroy it.

Finally, again, please meet the full 67.21(c) requirement - what is the quantity of records for #18? How many emails were there?

Have a good weekend,
Anonymous

From: Fine Arts Museums Of San Francisco

Dear Sir/Ma'am,

Regarding your Request #13, pursuant to California Government Code Section
6253(c), FAMSF is invoking an extension of up to 14 days (until October 7)
because of the voluminous nature of the request.

Regarding your Request #16, pursuant to California Government Code Section
6253(c), FAMSF is invoking an extension of up to 14 days (until October 7)
because of the need to consult with another department.

In addition, it has come to my attention, regarding your Request #1 for all
contracts between FAMSF (or the City as a whole) and COFAM, that there is
one additional responsive document. However, that document is being
withheld due to privacy concerns. Cal. Const. Art. 1 § 1; Cal. Govt.
Code § 6254(c); San Francisco Admin. Code § 67.1(g); San Francisco Admin
Code Chapter 12M.2.

Thank you,

On behalf of FAMSF,
Melissa Powers
Manager of Board Relations and Special Projects

Fine Arts Museums of San Francisco
de Young
Legion of Honor

Golden Gate Park | 50 Hagiwara Tea Garden Drive | San Francisco, CA 94118
p 415.750.3690
e mpowers@famsf.org | famsf.org

From:

To Whom It May Concern:

We write to provide an update on the status of our consideration of your petitions. Since September 6, you have submitted five separate petitions to the Supervisor of Records and numerous other email communications concerning prior petitions. We have already responded to four other petitions you submitted in recent months.

Due to the volume of petitions and the complexity of the issues raised, we are invoking the rule of reason and will respond to your petitions within a reasonable time period with the goal of addressing each petition within 30 days of submission. We understand you disagree with this basis. As we recently explained in response to one of your complaints with the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force, we strive to respond to petitions within the 10-day period specified in Section 67.21(d), but we don’t view it as an absolute deadline. Particularly here, where the issues raised are novel and you have submitted numerous petitions over a short time period, responding within 10 days is not feasible because doing so would unreasonably impinge on our ability to perform our other responsibilities.

Thank you for previously providing your stated preference in terms of prioritization.

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

Supervisor of Records,

Attached is a further petition re: FAMSF (I sent you a FAMSF petition " #79999– Rev. 2" on Sept. 12, and it remains pending).

It is much smaller in scope than the others -- for exactly one contract between the city and COFAM, being withheld in entirety for privacy reasons.

Sincerely,
Anonymous

From: Fine Arts Museums Of San Francisco

Dear Sir/Madam,

On September 23, you were informed that a document responsive to Request #1
(all contracts between FAMSF (or the City as a whole) and COFAM) was being
withheld due to privacy concerns. Cal. Const. Art. 1 § 1; Cal. Govt.
Code § 6254(c); San Francisco Admin. Code § 67.1(g); San Francisco Admin
Code Chapter 12M.2. The basis for withholding has been updated to also
include attorney-client privilege. Cal. Govt. Code §§ 6254(k), 6276.04;
Cal. Evid. Code §§ 950 et seq.

And do you have a mailing address for FAMSF to send a thumbdrive,
containing records responsive to Request #13?

Thank you,
On behalf of FAMSF,

Melissa Powers
Manager of Board Relations and Special Projects

Fine Arts Museums of San Francisco
de Young
Legion of Honor

Golden Gate Park | 50 Hagiwara Tea Garden Drive | San Francisco, CA 94118
p 415.750.3690
e mpowers@famsf.org | famsf.org

From: twitter.com/journo_anon

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

1) These justifications make no sense. A contract is between 2 or more parties. Attorney-client privilege does not exist when a party includes another party, who is not their attorney, on a communication. There is no legitimate way an entire contract between the City and COFAM, a private corporation that is not a law firm, can be shielded by personal privacy or attorney-client privilege. You must disclose every part of the contract that is not purportedly privileged or involving personal privacy, and redact the rest. Remember Sunshine Ordinance requires disclosure of even the smallest amount of non-exempt portion of a record.

2) Please merely email the records. I do not wish to provide a mailing address. You can split it into multiple emails if you need to. Alternatively you could use a file share service (Google Drive, Dropbox, etc.) . Also, if you publish the records to your public website, you may provide me just a URL.

Thanks,

Anonymous

From:

Please see attached response to your petition.
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

Thank you for your response Mr. Russi.

Please note a similar request to the City Attorney's office turned over a document captioned "Agreement Governing Reimbursement 2002-2003" between FAMSF and COFAM. To my knowledge FAMSF has not turned over such record. Therefore it is a record, withheld by FAMSF, that is a public record, and I would like a determination as such, and an order to FAMSF to immediately disclose it.

From: twitter.com/journo_anon

To be clear, the below was *already* part of our prior petitions against FAMSF re: their agreements. However if for some reason you aren't considering it that way, then this is a subsequent 67.21(d) petition.

"Please note a similar request to the City Attorney's office turned over a document captioned "Agreement Governing Reimbursement 2002-2003" between FAMSF and COFAM. To my knowledge FAMSF has not turned over such record. Therefore it is a record, withheld by FAMSF, that is a public record, and I would like a determination as such, and an order to FAMSF to immediately disclose it."

Remember that 67.21(d) imposes not ONLY a 10 day requirement, but ALSO an "as soon as possible" requirement - given that your office should have already investigated this request, it should not take you 10 days.

Thanks,
Anonymous

From: Fine Arts Museums Of San Francisco

Sir/Madam,

Links to folders, in response to Request 13 and 16 are below. Redactions
not reflected on the noted indexes are on the basis of personal privacy. Cal.
Const. Art. 1 § 1; Cal. Govt. Code § 6254(c); San Francisco Admin. Code §
67.1(g); San Francisco Admin Code Chapter 12M.2,
and San Francisco Charter, Section 5.100, when referring to donor
anonymity. Two records have been withheld, both on basis of privacy,
including for one, the authority based on San Francisco Charter, Section
5.100

https://drive.google.com/open?id=15B28EetRgLX1l9W-V8GMm7dDFaTc3W7Y
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1j-Q2gN5vZFSt0DuEJlBeBuN1bI5jIuzd
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1jDZogkWWBdbLwQHCCTrw0f4Rn4TsFiJR

These links will be shut off on October 14th, at close of business.
Thank you,
On behalf of FAMSF,

Melissa Powers
Manager of Board Relations and Special Projects

Fine Arts Museums of San Francisco
de Young
Legion of Honor

Golden Gate Park | 50 Hagiwara Tea Garden Drive | San Francisco, CA 94118
p 415.750.3690
e mpowers@famsf.org | famsf.org

From:

FAMSF has stated it does not have a copy of this document. Therefore, there is no issue for the Supervisor of Records to determine, and the petition is closed.
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

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

In preparation for publishing my story on the audit of San Francisco public records compliance, I will also be sampling your records of past controversies.

This is a further immediate disclosure request for every single email or physically written communication prepared, owned, used, or retained by your agency mentioning any of these persons, or to/from any of these persons, from Jan. 2016 to present, on the business AND personal: email, text, MMS, WhatsApp, Signal, Telegram, Instagram, Facebook, WeChat, Twitter, and all other online chat accounts of the Chair Emerita, the President, the CEO, and the Manager of Board Relations. You must perform a City of San Jose v Superior Court search for each of the 4 people mentioned above as well.
1. Bernard Osher ,
2. Jack McDonald ,
3. Louise Renne ,
4. Joe Cotchett ,
5. Bill Huggins ,
6. Therese Chen ,

This is also a 67.21(c) request for quantity, nature, form statements for each of these 6 requests for each of 4 custodians (24 statements), in 7 days without extension.

We remind you of your obligations to provide electronic records in any format we request them in, as long that format is available to you OR easy to generate (Admin Code 67.21(l)). Therefore, emails exported in the .eml or .msg format with all non-exempt headers, metadata, attachments, etc. are best.

If you choose to convert documents, for example, to PDF or printed format (even though we have specifically requested .eml or .msg formats), to easily redact them, you must still ensure that you have preserved the full content of the original conversation record, which contains many detailed headers beyond the generally used From/To/Subject/Sent/etc.

If you send PDFs, please use only text/search PDFs, not images.
Do not physically print and scan records (see SOTF 19047).

If on the City Attorney's advice or for other reasons, you redact portions of the metadata/headers, please specifically justify each such redaction with a legal citation (statute, ordinance, or case law).

If you provide PDFs or printed conversations or give us only a few of the headers or exclude attachments/images, and therefore withhold the other headers/attachments without proper justification, you may be in violation of SF Admin Code 67.21, 67.26, 67.27, Govt Code 6253(a), 6253.9, and/or 6255, and we may challenge your decision in court, before the Supervisor of Records, and/or the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force. I have various cases proceeding before the SOTF and Sup. of Records, and intend to vigorously enforce the public's right to record disclosure.

Please provide only those copies of records available without any fees. If you determine certain records would require fees, please instead provide the required (free) notice of which of those records are available and non-exempt for inspection in-person if we so choose.

Remember you must inform us whether there are are no responsive records, some fully disclosed records, some fully withheld records, or some partially disclosed/partially withheld/redacted records for each of the individual requests.

Sincerely,

Anonymous

From: Fine Arts Museums Of San Francisco

Sir/Ma'am,
This email is to inform you that while your request is dated October 8, it
was not delivered to and received by FAMSF until October 9. FAMSF will
respond by close of business October 10.
Thank you,
On behalf of FAMSF,
Melissa Powers
Manager of Board Relations and Special Projects

Fine Arts Museums of San Francisco
de Young
Legion of Honor

Golden Gate Park | 50 Hagiwara Tea Garden Drive | San Francisco, CA 94118
p 415.750.3690
e mpowers@famsf.org | famsf.org

From: Fine Arts Museums Of San Francisco

Sir/Ma'am,
In response to your request for follow up information, which we received on
October 9, although you labeled your request as an Immediate Disclosure
Request, it is not “simple, routine, or otherwise readily answerable,” as
is required by San Francisco Administrative Code Section 67.25(a). For this
reason, we are treating your Immediate Disclosure Request as a standard
public records request, subject to the normally applicable 10-day response
time, with a possible extension. Accordingly, we will be in touch with you
regarding the request by no later than October 21.
Thank you,
On behalf of FAMSF,
Melissa Powers
Manager of Board Relations and Special Projects

Fine Arts Museums of San Francisco
de Young
Legion of Honor

Golden Gate Park | 50 Hagiwara Tea Garden Drive | San Francisco, CA 94118
p 415.750.3690
e mpowers@famsf.org | famsf.org

From: twitter.com/journo_anon

RE: Reopening a 67.21(d) petition

Sup. of Records,

You previously stated "FAMSF has stated it does not have a copy of this document."
However contracts like ""Agreement Governing Reimbursement 2002-2003"" must be preserved for 20 years per FAMSF retention policy (https://index.sfgov.org/taxonomy/term/50).

Please have them re-search. If they don't have it, they may be violating their retention policy and/or SF AC 67.29-7.

--Anonymous

From: Fine Arts Museums Of San Francisco

Hello – I can follow up again with FAMSF. Nonetheless, the Supervisor of Records does not have jurisdiction over complaints concerning compliance with record retention policies or Section 67.29-7 of the Administrative Code. Thanks.

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

Yes I understand - I would have to take the retention issue up with SOTF.

Thanks!

From: twitter.com/journo_anon

This is a new 67.21(d) petition for all the remaining issues against FAMSF.
There are specific callouts for the Supervisor of Records since some issues you have already ruled on before or are not in your jurisdiction.

--Anonymous

From: twitter.com/journo_anon

RE: New 67.21(e) complaint

SOTF,

Attached is a new complaint:
Anonymous v FAMSF, FAMSF Board of Trustees, Jason Moment, Thomas Campbell

No metadata issues here.

I will fill out your form as well.

Sincerely,

Anonymous (requests@muckrock.com)

From: Fine Arts Museums Of San Francisco

Good Morning:

Jason Moment, Thomas Campbell and the Fine Arts Museum 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: Fine Arts Museums Of San Francisco

Good Morning:

Notice is hereby given that the Complaint Committee (Committee) of the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force shall hold hearings on complaints listed below to determine if the Task Force has jurisdiction pursuant to Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Section 67.21(e). A hearing to review the merits of the complaint will be scheduled on a future date.

The Complainant and Respondent are NOT REQUIRED to attend the November 19, 2019, Committee meeting but may attend to provide testimony related to the above listed determinations only.

Date: November 19, 2019

Location: City Hall, Room 408

Time: 5:30 p.m.

Complaints:

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 67.21, 67.26, 67.27, by failing to respond to an Immediate Disclosure Request in a timely and/or complete manner, failing to justify withholding of records and failing to maintain a Proposition G calendar.

File No. 19113: Complaint filed by Anonymous against Jason Moment, Thomas Campbell and the Fine Arts Museum for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Sections 67.21(b)(c)(k), 67.29-7(a)(c), 67.25, 67.26, 67.27, CPRA Government Code 6270.5-5, by failing to respond to an Immediate Disclosure Request in a timely and/or complete manner, failing to assist, failure to retain records, failing to record third party transactions, withholding and failure to justify withholding, failure to respond to a public records request in a timely and/or complete manner.

File No. 19115: Complaint filed by Ann Treboux against the City Attorney's Office and Margaret Baumgartner for allegedly violating Administrative Code, (Sunshine Ordinance) Sections 67.25 by failing to respond to an Immediate Disclosure Request for public records in a timely and/or complete manner.

File No. 19116: Complaint filed by Tom Hartz against the Public Library for allegedly violating Administrative Code, (Sunshine Ordinance) Sections 67.25 by failing to respond to an Immediate Disclosure Request for public records in a timely and/or complete manner.

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

Supervisor of Records,

I am resending this email originally sent on Oct. 29. Please acknowledge receipt so we know this is working.

======

This is a new 67.21(d) petition for all the remaining issues against FAMSF.
There are specific callouts for the Supervisor of Records since some issues you have already ruled on before or are not in your jurisdiction.

https://cdn.muckrock.com/outbound_request_attachments/94383620Anonymous/79999/FAMSF-Complaint.pdf

--Anonymous

From: Fine Arts Museums Of San Francisco

Good Afternoon:

The agenda and packet for the Complaint Committee 11/19/19 - 5:30 p.m. meeting is online at the following link:

https://sfgov.org/sunshine/sites/default/files/complaint111919_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

<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: Fine Arts Museums Of San Francisco

We received this email, but I don't see a petition below or attached. I do have the link that you forwarded earlier in the week.

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: Fine Arts Museums Of San Francisco

To Whom It May Concern:

We write to provide an update on the status of our consideration of your petitions. You have submitted eighteen separate petitions to the Supervisor of Records and numerous other follow up communications concerning prior petitions. We have already responded to twelve of your petitions.

Due to the volume of petitions and the complexity of the issues raised, we are continuing to invoke the rule of reason and will respond to your petitions within a reasonable time period with the goal of addressing each petition within 30 days of submission. We understand you disagree with this basis. As we recently explained in response to one of your complaints with the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force, we strive to respond to petitions within the 10-day period specified in Section 67.21(d), but we don't view it as an absolute deadline. Particularly here, where the issues raised are novel and you have submitted numerous petitions over a short time period, responding within 10 days is not feasible because doing so would unreasonably impinge on our ability to perform our other responsibilities.
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: Fine Arts Museums Of San Francisco

Anonymous,

I am writing in response to your Immediate Disclosure Request of September
12, 2019 entitled "California Public Records Act Request: Immediate
Disclosure Request - FAMSF/COFAM/FAMF Relationship.” and in your petitions
and complaints to the Supervisor of Records. In your request you ask for:

1) the SB 272/ Gov Code 6270.5 enterprise systems catalog for FAMSF you are
required to create and disclose. Please provide a copy in PDF or
spreadsheet format; do not provide a URL.

2) the SB 272/ Gov Code 6270.5 enterprise systems catalog for COFAM you are
required to create and disclose. Please provide a copy in PDF or
spreadsheet format; do not provide a URL.

3) the SB 272/ Gov Code 6270.5 enterprise systems catalog for FAMF you are
required to create and disclose. Please provide a copy in PDF or
spreadsheet format; do not provide a URL.

A PDF of San Francisco Data's Inventory of citywide enterprise systems of
record is attached. It can also be accessed at this link:

https://data.sfgov.org/widgets/ebux-gcnq
<https://data.sfgov.org/widgets/ebux-gcnq>
.

From: Fine Arts Museums Of San Francisco

Good Afternoon:

You are receiving this notice because you are named as a Complainant or Respondent in one of the following complaints scheduled before the Complaint Committee of 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: February 18, 2020

Location: City Hall, Room 408

Time: 5:30 p.m.

File No. 19113: Complaint filed by Anonymous against Jason Moment, Thomas Campbell and the Fine Arts Museum for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Sections 67.21(b)(c)(k), 67.29-7(a)(c), 67.25, 67.26, 67.27, CPRA Government Code 6270.5-5, by failing to respond to an Immediate Disclosure Request in a timely and/or complete manner, failing to assist, failure to retain records, failing to record third party transactions, withholding and failure to justify withholding, failure to respond to a public records request in a timely and/or complete manner.

File No. 19120: Complaint filed by Anonymous against the Office of the City Attorney for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Sections 67.21(b)(c), 67.26, 67.27, by failing to respond to a request for public records in a timely and/or complete manner; failing to justify withholding of records and failing to provide assistance.

File No. 19061: Complaint filed by John Hooper against the Office of Economic and Workforce Development for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Section 67.21, by failing to respond to a public records request in a timely and/or complete manner.

File No. 19062: Complaint filed by John Hooper against Public Works for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Section 67.21, by failing to respond to a public records request in a timely and/or complete manner.

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

Documentation (evidence supporting/disputing complaint)

For a document to be considered, it must be received at least five (5) working days before the hearing (see attached Public Complaint Procedure).

For inclusion in the agenda packet, supplemental/supporting documents must be received by 5:00 pm, February 12, 2020.

Cheryl Leger

Assistant Clerk, Board of Supervisors

Tel: 415-554-7724

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

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

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

From: Fine Arts Museums Of San Francisco

Please find attached the response for Complaint No. 19113.

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>

Warning An exclamation point.

There are too many files to display on this communication. See all files

From: Fine Arts Museums Of San Francisco

Attached are documents regarding Complaint No. 19113.

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>

Warning An exclamation point.

There are too many files to display on this communication. See all files

From: Fine Arts Museums Of San Francisco

To Whom it May Concern,

Thank you for contacting the Fine Arts Museums of San Francisco. This email
is in response to your public records request submitted on Tuesday,
September 10, 2019, for:

"*1. all legal/contractual relationships between your agency (or the City
as a whole) and Corporation of the Fine Arts Museums of San Francisco
(COFAM)"*

After conducting a reasonable search, a member of our staff provided two
responsive documents for this request on September 11, 2019. Subsequent
searches have located an additional responsive document. Attached you will
find the responsive document for your request.

Thank you,

Fine Arts Museums of San Francisco

From: Fine Arts Museums Of San Francisco

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 Complaint Committee of 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: March 17, 2020

Location: City Hall, Room 408

Time: 5:30 p.m.

File No. 19113: Complaint filed by Anonymous against Jason Moment, Thomas Campbell and the Fine Arts Museum for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Sections 67.21(b)(c)(k), 67.29-7(a)(c), 67.25, 67.26, 67.27, CPRA Government Code 6270.5-5, by failing to respond to an Immediate Disclosure Request in a timely and/or complete manner, failing to assist, failure to retain records, failing to record third party transactions, withholding and failure to justify withholding, failure to respond to a public records request in a timely and/or complete manner.

File No. 19120: Complaint filed by Anonymous against the Office of the City Attorney for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Sections 67.21(b)(c), 67.26, 67.27, by failing to respond to a request for public records in a timely and/or complete manner; failing to justify withholding of records and failing to provide assistance.

File No. 19061: Complaint filed by John Hooper against the Office of Economic and Workforce Development for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Section 67.21, by failing to respond to a public records request in a timely and/or complete manner.

File No. 19062: Complaint filed by John Hooper against Public Works for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Section 67.21, by failing to respond to a public records request in a timely and/or complete manner.

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

Documentation (evidence supporting/disputing complaint)

For a document to be considered, it must be received at least five (5) working days before the hearing (see attached Public Complaint Procedure).

For inclusion in the agenda packet, supplemental/supporting documents must be received by 5:00 pm, February 12, 2020.

Cheryl Leger

Assistant Clerk, Board of Supervisors

Tel: 415-554-7724

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

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

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

From:

Re #19061 and #19062:
I apologize, but I will not be able to atttend the 3/17 meeting. For the record, I was prepared to speak at the Feb 18 meeting which was cancelled for lack of a quorum. Please let me know when the next Complaint Commmittee meeting is expected. John Hooper

From: Fine Arts Museums Of San Francisco

To Whom it May Concern:

Thank you for contacting the Fine Arts Museums of San Francisco. This email
is in response to your public records request submitted on Tuesday, October
8, 2019, for:

* "every single email or physically written communication prepared, owned,
used, or retained by your agency mentioning any of these persons, or
to/from any of these persons, from Jan. 2016 to present, on the business
AND personal: email, text, MMS, WhatsApp, Signal, Telegram, Instagram,
Facebook, WeChat, Twitter, and all other online chat accounts of the Chair
Emerita, the President, the CEO, and the Manager of Board Relations. You
must also perform a City of San Jose v Superior Court search for each of
the 4 people mentioned above as well.*

*1. Bernard Osher ,2. Jack McDonald ,3. Louise Renne ,4. Joe Cotchett ,5.
Bill Huggins ,6. Therese Chen ,"*

We are working on your request, however, we are finding that there are a
voluminous amount of records that simply list these individuals’ names such
as rosters, exhibition donor lists, event information and similar generic
business documents.

In an effort to help ensure that FAMSF is providing you with the specific
records you are interested in reviewing, we would be grateful if you could
further clarify your request by letting us know if there is any other
information that might narrow or more accurately focus our search for
records.

Please contact FAMSF with any additional clarifications you can provide.

Thank you,

Fine Arts Museums of San Francisco

From: Fine Arts Museums Of San Francisco

Good Morning:

Due to concerns related to the Coronavirus the Complaint Committee meeting scheduled for March 17, 2020, has been CANCELLED.

We will be in touch to reschedule your matters accordingly.

Thank you.

Victor Young

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: Fine Arts Museums Of San Francisco

To Whom it May Concern:

Thank you for contacting the Fine Arts Museums of San Francisco. This email
is in response to your public records request submitted on Tuesday, October
8, 2019, for:

* "every single email or physically written communication prepared, owned,
used, or retained by your agency mentioning any of these persons, or
to/from any of these persons, from Jan. 2016 to present, on the business
AND personal: email, text, MMS, WhatsApp, Signal, Telegram, Instagram,
Facebook, WeChat, Twitter, and all other online chat accounts of the Chair
Emerita, the President, the CEO, and the Manager of Board Relations. You
must also perform a City of San Jose v Superior Court search for each of
the 4 people mentioned above as well.*

*1. Bernard Osher ,2. Jack McDonald ,3. Louise Renne ,4. Joe Cotchett ,5.
Bill Huggins ,6. Therese Chen ,"*

Attached you will find two sets of responsive documents, in response to the
"to/from" part of your request. Additionally, you will find the redaction
log for this request, per Admin. Code § 67.26 and Admin. Code § 67.27.

We are continuing to work on your request, and sent an email to you on
Friday, March 6, 2020 asking for further clarification. We are finding that
there are a voluminous amount of records that simply list these
individuals’ names such as rosters, exhibition donor lists, event
information and similar generic business documents.

In an effort to help ensure that FAMSF is providing you with the specific
records you are interested in reviewing, we would be grateful if you could
further clarify your request by letting us know if there is any other
information that might narrow or more accurately focus our search for
records.

Please contact FAMSF with any additional clarifications you can provide.

Thank you,

Fine Arts Museums of San Francisco

From: Fine Arts Museums Of San Francisco

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 Compliance and Amendments Committee to: 1) hear the merits of the complaint; 2) issue a determination; and/or 3) consider referrals from a Task Force Committee.

Date: July 28, 2020

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

Time: 4:30 p.m.

Complainants: Your attendance is required for this meeting/hearing.

Respondents/Departments: Pursuant to Section 67.21 (e) of the Ordinance, the custodian of records or a representative of your department, who can speak to the matter, is required at the meeting/hearing.

Complaints:

1. File No. 19109: Complaint filed by Stephen Malloy against Dept. of Public Health for violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Sections 67.24, 67.25, 67.26 and 67.27 by failing to respond to a public records request in a timely and/or complete manner.

2. File No. 19110: Complaint filed by Stephen Malloy against the Fire Department for violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Sections 67.24, 67.25, 67.26 and 67.27 by failing to respond to a public records request in a timely and/or complete manner.

3. File No. 19114: Complaint filed by Shane Anderies against Tyler Vu and the Public Defender's Office for violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Section 67.24, 67.25, 67.26, 67.27 and 67.29 by failing to respond to an Immediate Disclosure Request in a timely and/or complete manner.

4. File No. 19101: Complaint filed by Ray Hartz against President Mark Buell and the Joint Zoo Committee for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Sections 67.15(d), and 67.16, by failing to place the submitted 150-word summaries of Public Comment into the meeting minutes (Meeting of August 15, 2019).

5. File No. 19113: Complaint filed by Anonymous against Jason Moment, Thomas Campbell and the Fine Arts Museum for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Sections 67.21(b)(c)(k), 67.29-7(c), 67.25, 67.26, 67.27, CPRA Government Code 6270.5-5, by failing to respond to an Immediate Disclosure Request in a timely and/or complete manner, failing to assist, failure to retain records, failing to record third party transactions, withholding and failure to justify withholding, failure to respond to a public records request in a timely and/or complete manner.

Documentation (evidence supporting/disputing complaint)

For a document to be considered, it must be received at least five (5) working days before the hearing (see attached Public Complaint Procedure). For inclusion into the agenda packet, supplemental/supporting documents must be received by 5:00 pm, July 22, 2020.

Cheryl Leger

Assistant Clerk, Board of Supervisors

Tel: 415-554-7724

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

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

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

From: Fine Arts Museums Of San Francisco

To Whom it May Concern:

Thank you for contacting the Fine Arts Museums of San Francisco. This email
is in response to your public records request submitted on Tuesday, October
8, 2019, for:

* "every single email or physically written communication prepared, owned,
used, or retained by your agency mentioning any of these persons, or
to/from any of these persons, from Jan. 2016 to present, on the business
AND personal: email, text, MMS, WhatsApp, Signal, Telegram, Instagram,
Facebook, WeChat, Twitter, and all other online chat accounts of the Chair
Emerita, the President, the CEO, and the Manager of Board Relations. You
must also perform a City of San Jose v Superior Court search for each of
the 4 people mentioned above as well.*

*1. Bernard Osher ,2. Jack McDonald ,3. Louise Renne ,4. Joe Cotchett ,5.
Bill Huggins ,6. Therese Chen ,"*

Attached you will find a third set of responsive documents, in response to
the "mentioning" part of your request. Additionally, you will find the
redaction log for this request, per Admin. Code § 67.26 and Admin. Code §
67.27. At this time, FAMSF has provided all its responsive documents for
this request.

Thank you,

Fine Arts Museums of San Francisco

From: Fine Arts Museums Of San Francisco

Dear Parties: Per the direction of Chair Wolfe, matters 19101 and 19113 will not be heard at the July 28, 2020 Compliance and Amendments Committee. Matter summaries are below.

File No. 19101: Complaint filed by Ray Hartz against President Mark Buell and the Joint Zoo Committee for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Sections 67.15(d), and 67.16, by failing to place the submitted 150-word summaries of Public Comment into the meeting minutes (Meeting of August 15, 2019).

File No. 19113: Complaint filed by Anonymous against Jason Moment, Thomas Campbell and the Fine Arts Museum for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Sections 67.21(b)(c)(k), 67.29-7(c), 67.25, 67.26, 67.27, CPRA Government Code 6270.5-5, by failing to respond to an Immediate Disclosure Request in a timely and/or complete manner, failing to assist, failure to retain records, failing to record third party transactions, withholding and failure to justify withholding, failure to respond to a public records request in a timely and/or complete manner.

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: Fine Arts Museums Of San Francisco

To Whom It May Concern -

I understand that the Fine Arts Museums has now fully responded to the requests at issue in this petition. If you contest their assertion of an exemption to redact or withhold a record, please let us know. Thank you.

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

Thanks - FAMSF hasn't produced records regarding FAMSF/City employees using IT systems run by FAMF/COFAM. An agent of FAMSF represented at a public SOTF hearing on Sept. 4 that the City agency uses domains, email and document servers, owned and operated
by these private entities (see https://sanfrancisco.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=
95&clip_id=33934, audio discussion starting at 4hr 15min 01sec.). These records must exist.

FAMSF appers to believe these are not public records because they may be retained on a private non profits servers, even though they would be used by city employees.

From: Fine Arts Museums Of San Francisco

FAMSF has produced the responsive records that it has. We consider the petition closed. Thank you.

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

Files

pages

Close
Warning An exclamation point.

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