Warning An exclamation point.

This request is permanently embargoed.

Mark Rocha Records

twitter.com/journo_anon Public Records Requester filed this request with the City College Of San Francisco of San Francisco, CA.
Submitted May 18, 2021
Status
Awaiting Acknowledgement

Communications

From: twitter.com/journo_anon Public Records Requester

Subject: California Public Records Act Request: Mark Rocha Records

Email

To Whom It May Concern:

Pursuant to the California Public Records Act, I hereby make each of the following distinct CPRA requests. You must provide a determination and explanation separately for EACH of the requests, under Gov Code 6253(c).

1. The settlement between CCSF and Mark Rocha

2. Communications between (CCSF or its attorneys) and (Rocha or his attorneys), on or after his one week before Rocha's last day of employment to present. These are not exempt as work-product or attorney-client privileged, since the parties are adverse. Remember to produce records in your *constructive* possession - if you used external counsel, those counsel's records that you have an ownership interest in are in your constructive possession must be provided.

3. Records describing CCSF-owned vehicles driven by Rocha, if any, including the tax or financial value of such a benefit, if any, from Jan 1, 2018 until Rocha's date of departure

4. Records of damage, accidents, claims, or insurance, if any, for any CCSF-owned & Rocha-driven vehicle, from Jan 1, 2018 until Rocha's date of departure

5. Communications between Rocha and any of {his direct or indirect superiors, human resources, risk management, claims or legal department} re: any vehicles driven by Rocha (date range: from departure to 2 months prior).

Remember that records re: allegations of wrongdoing against officials are disclosable not only if they are well-founded and substantial, but ALSO disclosure may be warranted if the allegations of misconduct involve a high-ranking public official or employee in a position of public trust and responsibility. The public has an interest in understanding why the employee was exonerated and how the local agency employer treated the accusations. (Caldecott v. Superior Court (2015) 243 http://Cal.App.4th 212, 223–224; Marken v. Santa Monica-Malibu Unified Sch. Dist. (2012) 202 Cal.App.4th 1250, 1275–1276; BRV, Inc. v. Superior Court (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 742, 759; Bakersfield City Sch. Dist. v Superior Court (2004) 118 Cal.App.4th 1041, 1045–1047; AFSCME, Local 1650 v Regents of University of Cal.ifornia (1978) 80 Cal.App.3d 913, 918. )

Rocha was a high-ranking official in a position of such trust and responsibility as Chancellor. The public has the right to know why he departed and why CCSF paid him a very large settlement, whether or not the allegations were true. Rocha wanting the settlement to be confidential does not make all of the records disclosable. The law, and not Rocha's personal interest in the records, determines whether the records are disclosable. CPRA does not allow a private party, such as Rocha, to control disclosure of public records otherwise non-exempt under the law.

Provide all records without fees, in electronic format. Justify all withholding of information or redactions. Provide exact copies, preserving all electronic metadata, attachments, formatting, hyperlinks, email addresses, To/From/Cc/Bcc, if any. Provide incremental responses and do not wait until all records are available.

Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.
I will appeal any unlawful responses. I have a >94% win-rate on public records appeals.

I look forward to receiving your response to this request within 10 calendar days, as the statute requires.

Sincerely,

Anonymous

Files

There are no files associated with this request.