Immediate Disclosure Request - Supervisor of Records - Petitions and Responses

twitter.com/journo_anon filed this request with the San Francisco City Attorney of San Francisco, CA.
Est. Completion None
Status
Awaiting Appeal
Tags

Communications

From: twitter.com/journo_anon

Thank you. You previously indicated I did not follow the subject-line requirements for the IDR below.
I agree your office is correct on that point, so for avoiding any doubt, I am re-filing this request as an IDR. Feel free to send your responses only to this email address.

Thanks,
Anonymous

=====

This is a supplemental IMMEDIATE DISCLOSURE REQUEST (it does not replace our prior requests).

Your Supervisor of Records office and the Office of Mayor responded nearly simultaneously on Sept 6 (the due date) regarding my Aug 27 petition and a supplemental response to my 19047 calendar request. When the City Attorney, as Supervisor of Records, maneuvers in this way with the Mayor, they are *not* acting as the Mayor's legal counsel, and therefore your communications regarding my petiton are NOT subject to attorney-client privilege.

Note that I am not currently disputing that St. Croix vs. Superior Court (Grossman, RPI) makes privileged the communications between the Mayor's DCA(s) and the Mayor's Office *for the purpose of providing legal advice.* However, in the case where the Supervisor of Records is negotiating with the Mayor to release supplemental records in response to my petition as is evident here, the Supervisor of Records is supposedly acting on behalf of the people as an impartial determiner of the status of records, not as legal counsel to the Mayor, in order to enforce disclosure of records pursuant to the Sunshine Ordinance.

With all that in mind, this is an IMMEDIATE DISCLOSURE REQUEST for:

1) records of all written communication (emails/texts/chat/etc.) between the Mayor's Office and City Attorney's office acting in its capacity as the Supervisor of Records regarding disclosure of non-Prop G calendar information, and/or my petition to the Sup. of Records on Aug. 27 re: that issue, and/or the Sup. of Records' response to that petition.

2) *public information* (not records) regarding any *non-written* communications Mayor's office (specifically Hank Heckel) has with the City Attorney's office acting in its capacity as the Supervisor of Records regarding disclosure of non-Prop G calendar information, and/or my petition to the Sup. of Records on Aug. 27 re: that issue, and/or the Sup. of Records' response to that petition. I am asking for a release of oral public information in this item.

Remember under SFAC 67.21(i): "All communications with the City Attorney's Office with regard to this ordinance ... shall be public records."

In this particular case, we will accept a PDF text format, as long as it includes at least Date/From/To/Subject/Sent/Received/Cc/Bcc/Subject/attachments/inline images metadata.

Note that all of your responses (including disclosed records) may be automatically and instantly available to the public on the MuckRock.com service used to issue this request (though I am not a MuckRock representative).

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.

Thanks,
Anonymous

From: San Francisco City Attorney

Thank you for your email. We disagree with your characterization of the role of the Supervisor of Records, and respectfully decline to produce documents in response to your first request based on the attorney-client privilege. (Cal. Gov't Code § 6276.04; Cal. Evid. Code § 954). We decline to produce any information in response to your second request, which you have styled a request for "oral public information," for two reasons. First, the request exceeds the proper scope of a request for oral public information, because under Admin Code 67.22, this procedure only applies to requests for certain information about a department's "operations, plans, policies and positions." Second, even if the scope of the request was narrowed in accordance with section 67.22, the specific information sought here - confidential discussions between the City Attorney's Office and a client department - would still be exempt from disclosure under the attorney-client privilege.

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

Sincerely,

[cid:image002.jpg@01D568BC.49201F80]Elizabeth A. Coolbrith
Paralegal
Office of City Attorney Dennis Herrera
(415) 554-4685 Direct
www.sfcityattorney.org
Find us on: Facebook<https://www.facebook.com/sfcityattorney/> Twitter<https://twitter.com/SFCityAttorney> Instagram<https://www.instagram.com/sfcityattorney/>

From: twitter.com/journo_anon

The Sunshine Ordinance requires that custodians indicate the existence or non-existence of records 67.21(c) requested, regardless of whether they are exempt from disclosure. Please indicate whether records of the following exist regardless of whether you contend they are exempt:
1. written communication (emails/texts/chat/etc.) between the Mayor's Office and City Attorney's office acting in its capacity as the Supervisor of Records regarding disclosure of non-Prop G calendar information
2. written communication (emails/texts/chat/etc.) between the Mayor's Office and City Attorney's office acting in its capacity as the Supervisor of Records regarding my petition to the Sup. of Records on Aug. 27 re: non-Prop G calendar information
3. written communication (emails/texts/chat/etc.) between the Mayor's Office and City Attorney's office acting in its capacity as the Supervisor of Records regarding the Sup. of Records' response to that petition.

Thanks,
Anonymous

From: twitter.com/journo_anon

SFAC 67.21(c) requires " A custodian of a public record shall assist a requester in identifying the existence, form, and nature of any records or information maintained by, available to, or in the custody of the custodian, whether or not the contents of those records are exempt from disclosure and shall, when requested to do so, provide in writing within seven days following receipt of a request, a statement as to the existence, quantity, form and nature of records relating to a particular subject or questions..."

Therefore, please provide the statement of existence, quantity, form, and nature for all of those 3 items (repeated below):
1. written communication (emails/texts/chat/etc.) between the Mayor's Office and City Attorney's office acting in its capacity as the Supervisor of Records regarding disclosure of non-Prop G calendar information
2. written communication (emails/texts/chat/etc.) between the Mayor's Office and City Attorney's office acting in its capacity as the Supervisor of Records regarding my petition to the Sup. of Records on Aug. 27 re: non-Prop G calendar information
3. written communication (emails/texts/chat/etc.) between the Mayor's Office and City Attorney's office acting in its capacity as the Supervisor of Records regarding the Sup. of Records' response to that petition.

Thanks,
Anonymous

From: San Francisco City Attorney

Your September 13 seeks information under 67.21(c) concerning written communications our office may have had with the Mayor’s Office regarding your request and petition concerning calendar information. Confidential communications between our office and a client department are exempt from disclosure under the attorney-client privilege. See Cal. Evid. Code § 954; Cal. Gov’t Code §§ 6254(k), 6276.04. Further, the St. Croix decision, which we have emailed you about previously (e.g., June 6), confirms that the attorney-client privilege is an “integral part” of the attorney-client relationship created by the S.F. charter, and that the Sunshine Ordinance does not compel disclosure of materials that fall within the scope of the attorney-client privilege. Putting aside any information that would be covered by the attorney-client privilege, our response is that we do not have any records responsive to your requests.

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

Sincerely,

[cid:image003.jpg@01D56D54.5DC3A140]Elizabeth A. Coolbrith
Paralegal
Office of City Attorney Dennis Herrera
(415) 554-4685 Direct
www.sfcityattorney.org
Find us on: Facebook<https://www.facebook.com/sfcityattorney/> Twitter<https://twitter.com/SFCityAttorney> Instagram<https://www.instagram.com/sfcityattorney/>

From: twitter.com/journo_anon

**Note that all of your responses (including disclosed records) may be automatically and instantly available to the public on the MuckRock.com service used to issue this request (though I am not a MuckRock representative).

I am aware of the St. Croix decision but not sure which June 6 response you refer to.

But I am not asking (in 67.21(c)) for the content of your office's legal advice or the content of the Mayor's questions or responses in eliciting such advice (even under your argument that the Supervisor of Records provides such legal advice, which I also contest).

I am asking under 67.21(c) for the "existence, quantity, form and nature" of the records, regardless of their content, and as the ordinance states, "whether or not the contents of those records are exempt from disclosure."

It appears in saying "may have had" you are giving a kind of FOIA Glomar response, which is not available under the CPRA. The CPRA itself requires you to provide a determination of the *existence* of responsive records, and the Sunshine Ordinance merely also requires you to indicate quantity, form and nature, and withinn 7 days.

It appears you have not provided either the CPRA determination or Sunshine statement for the Sept. 13 requests on this thread.

Thanks,
Anonymous

From: twitter.com/journo_anon

You may ignore the auto-follow-ups here, I will take this up for appeal.

Thanks.

Files