Mayor's Notes - Immediate Disclosure Request

Anonymous Person filed this request with the Office of the Mayor of San Francisco, CA.
Due March 6, 2020
Est. Completion Oct. 28, 2019
Status
Awaiting Response

Communications

From: Anonymous Person

Mayor Breed,

** Note that all of your responses (including disclosed records) may be automatically and instantly available to the public on the MuckRock.com service used to issue this request (though I am not a MuckRock representative). Redact your responses correctly - once you send them to us there is no going back. **

This is a new Immediate Disclosure Request under the San Francisco Sunshine Ordinance and the CPRA. This is also a 67.21(c) request for the statement of quantity, nature, and form (even if exempt!) for each of #1, 2, and 3, within 7 days without extension.

All records must be provided in rolling fashion.

Please remember to justify all redactions with specificity - there is an Adobe Acrobat menu item designed exactly for this where you can code each redaction with a statute section number and then apply all the redactions, instead of writing a typed letter describing page locations (though it is your choice, Acrobat's functionality is superior).

Although you may not retain the records below formally, if you retain, own, use, or prepared them at the time of receipt of request you must provide them.

I am asking for very few documents, which should be readily available to the Mayor, and thus immediately disclosed.

Please provide:
1. IMMEDIATE DISCLOSURE: an electronic scanned copy of the last 5 non-blank pages of the Mayor's most recently used physical business memo- or note-book written in by her individually (not her staff on her behalf). If no such notebooks exist, you must indicate there are no responsive records.

2. IMMEDIATE DISCLOSURE: an electronic copy (in PDF format, without printing physically and scanning) of the last 5 business electronic writings (whether Word documents, emails, etc.) written by the Mayor individually (not her staff on her behalf) to any City staff. If no such electronic writings exist, you must indicate there are no responsive records.

3. IMMEDIATE DISCLOSURE: personal property responsive to #1 or #2 containing public business, from the Mayor, per City of San Jose v Superior Court

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

I look forward to your immediate disclosure.

Sincerely,
Anonymous

From: Office of the Mayor

Dear Anonymous,

We have not currently located any responsive records. However, your request is neither simple nor routine and accordingly we reserve the full statutory period to confirm our response. See Admin Code 67.25.
Regards,

Hank Heckel
Compliance Officer
Office of the Mayor
City and County of San Francisco

From: Anonymous Person

** Note that all of your responses (including disclosed records) may be automatically and instantly available to the public on the MuckRock.com service used to issue this request (though I am not a MuckRock representative). Redact your responses correctly - once you send them to us there is no going back. **

Mr. Heckel I will just remind you that 67.25 IDRs can be used for requests that are simple, routine OR "readily answerable." I would believe Mayor Breed can readily answer this.

Regardless, I look forward to your complete response.

--Anonymous

From: Office of the Mayor

Dear Anonymous,

We have not located any records responsive to the request below satisfying the conditions you have placed on these items. If you have any questions, please let us know.
Regards,

Hank Heckel
Compliance Officer
Office of the Mayor
City and County of San Francisco

From: Anonymous Person

Thank you.
To avoid any misunderstandings upon appeal I believe the Mayor's Office is claiming it has retained 0 physical memos or notebooks written by the Mayor, and 0 electronic documents written by the Mayor.

I want to confirm because for example pg. 5 of the Oct. 22 BoS communications includes a Notice of Appointment signed by the Mayor herself, not by a deputy in her name ( https://sfgov.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=F&ID=7814525&GUID=50842693-134E-48E1-80DD-E7B102968574 ). There are many such examples.

--Anonymous

From: Office of the Mayor

Dear Anonymous,

I want to make sure I understand your request. Your request refers to the "last 5 business electronic writings (whether Word documents, emails, etc.) written by the Mayor individually (not her staff on her behalf) to any City staff." I understood that to mean electronic writings written entirely by the Mayor. The document you reference was prepared by staff and reviewed and signed by the Mayor.

If you are looking for documents that were originally prepared by staff and then reviewed or revised by the Mayor for her signature, that changes the parameters from our original understanding. In that case, we will go back and look for responsive documents with that criteria in mind.

Thank you,

Hank Heckel
Compliance Officer
Office of the Mayor
City and County of San Francisco

October 28, 2019

This is a follow up to a previous request:

Thank you.
To avoid any misunderstandings upon appeal I believe the Mayor's Office is claiming it has retained 0 physical memos or notebooks written by the Mayor, and 0 electronic documents written by the Mayor.

I want to confirm because for example pg. 5 of the Oct. 22 BoS communications includes a Notice of Appointment signed by the Mayor herself, not by a deputy in her name ( https://sfgov.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=F&ID=7814525&GUID=50842693-134E-48E1-80DD-E7B102968574 ). There are many such examples.

--Anonymous

Filed via MuckRock.com
E-mail (Preferred): requests@muckrock.com<mailto:requests@muckrock.com>
Upload documents directly: https://accounts.muckrock.com/accounts/login/?url_auth_token=AAAxJKbo2Vje5U7JJiIkNXfIXyg%3A1iPIab%3Atrh-pbAF2qRYvnlxIwrLZdzamVw&next=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.muckrock.com%2Faccounts%2Flogin%2F%3Fnext%3D%252Faccounts%252Fagency_login%252Foffice-of-the-mayor-3891%252Fmayors-notes-immediate-disclosure-request-81856%252F%253Femail%253Dmayorsunshinerequests%252540sfgov.org
Is this email coming to the wrong contact? Something else wrong? Use the above link to let us know.

For mailed responses, please address (see note):
MuckRock News
DEPT MR 81856
411A Highland Ave
Somerville, MA 02144-2516

PLEASE NOTE: This request is not filed by a MuckRock staff member, but is being sent through MuckRock by the above in order to better track, share, and manage public records requests. Also note that improperly addressed (i.e., with the requester's name rather than "MuckRock News" and the department number) requests might be returned as undeliverable.

---

On Oct. 28, 2019:
Subject: RE: California Public Records Act Request: Mayor's Notes - Immediate Disclosure Request
Dear Anonymous,

We have not located any records responsive to the request below satisfying the conditions you have placed on these items. If you have any questions, please let us know.
Regards,

Hank Heckel
Compliance Officer
Office of the Mayor
City and County of San Francisco
---

From: Anonymous Person

Sorry, let me clarify. You are correct that merely signed documents do not qualify. But documents where she wrote/typed a part of the document would qualify. It is also possible none of those exist either, so let me restate a new IDR for better clarity:

2. IMMEDIATE DISCLOSURE: an electronic copy (in PDF format, without printing physically and scanning) of the last 5 business electronic writings (whether Word documents, emails, text messages, chat messages, etc.) written by the Mayor individually in any part (but not solely by virtue of her signature). If no such electronic writings exist, you must indicate there are no responsive records.

3. IMMEDIATE DISCLOSURE: personal property responsive to #2 containing public business, from the Mayor, per City of San Jose v Superior Court

You may forward-date this new IDR to Oct. 30.

The request from Oct 17 is considered complete.

Thanks,
Anonymous

From: Anonymous Person

Immediate Disclosure Request - Oct. 30

Sorry, let me clarify. You are correct that merely signed documents do not qualify. But documents where she wrote/typed a part of the document would qualify. It is also possible none of those exist either, so let me restate a new IDR for better clarity:

2. IMMEDIATE DISCLOSURE: an electronic copy (in PDF format, without printing physically and scanning) of the last 5 business electronic writings (whether Word documents, emails, text messages, chat messages, etc.) written by the Mayor individually in any part (but not solely by virtue of her signature). If no such electronic writings exist, you must indicate there are no responsive records.

3. IMMEDIATE DISCLOSURE: personal property responsive to #2 containing public business, from the Mayor, per City of San Jose v Superior Court

You may forward-date this new IDR to Oct. 30.

The request from Oct 17 is considered complete.

Thanks,
Anonymous

From: Office of the Mayor

Anonymous,

Further to your clarification of the request below and forward dating to October 30, please the attached responsive records to Item 2.

We have not located any records responsive to Item 3.
Regards,

Hank Heckel
Compliance Officer
Office of the Mayor
City and County of San Francisco

From: Anonymous Person

** Note that all of your responses (including disclosed records) may be automatically and instantly available to the public on the MuckRock.com service used to issue this request (though I am not a MuckRock representative). Redact your responses correctly - once you send them to us there is no going back. **

Thank you. This is a further immediate disclosure request for:

1. Immediate disclosure: All executive directives issued by the Mayor (solely in her role as Mayor, not her prior role as Acting Mayor), in whatever format you can produce the fastest. If there is some online index of such directives, you may also simply provide that URL. This request is for records anywhere in the Mayor's Office, not solely those possessed by or written by Mayor Breed herself.

2. Regular disclosure: Every version, draft and final, of (a) every executive directive issued by the Mayor and (b) the Sept 23 NRA memo, in the electronic format stored by the City. It is likely you stored these somewhere as Word documents. It will be extremely difficult to argue Word documents are information security records or contain IP addresses or passwords or similar. Remember that the Ordinance prohibits the public interest balancing test, deliberative process exemption, and all similar exemptions, and also much weakens the draft exemption. Include any tracked changes if they are stored in the record. This request is for records anywhere in the Mayor's Office, not solely those possessed by or written by Mayor Breed herself. Withholding tracked changes or author identity will also be appealed.

3. Regular disclosure: Every version of every record in #2, exported to a PDF format. Remember that the Ordinance prohibits the public interest balancing test, deliberative process exemption, and all similar exemptions, and also much weakens the draft exemption. You do not have to produce #3 if you produce #2 for any given record. However, refusing #2 while producing #3 will still lead to an appeal of #2. If the original record contains tracked changes, export those to PDF as well (this is a view in Word that you can print to PDF). Withholding tracked changes or author identity will also be appealed.

--Anonymous

From: Office of the Mayor

Anonymous,

This is in response to your request below, received by the Office of the Mayor on November 1, 2019.

Specifically, please see the requested Executive Directives issued by Mayor Breed, responsive to Item 1.

We will continue our response to items 2 and 3 pursuant to the regular disclosure period.

Regards,

Hank Heckel
Compliance Officer
Office of the Mayor
City and County of San Francisco

October 31, 2019

This is a follow up to a previous request:

** Note that all of your responses (including disclosed records) may be automatically and instantly available to the public on the MuckRock.com service used to issue this request (though I am not a MuckRock representative). Redact your responses correctly - once you send them to us there is no going back. **

Thank you. This is a further immediate disclosure request for:

1. Immediate disclosure: All executive directives issued by the Mayor (solely in her role as Mayor, not her prior role as Acting Mayor), in whatever format you can produce the fastest. If there is some online index of such directives, you may also simply provide that URL. This request is for records anywhere in the Mayor's Office, not solely those possessed by or written by Mayor Breed herself.

2. Regular disclosure: Every version, draft and final, of (a) every executive directive issued by the Mayor and (b) the Sept 23 NRA memo, in the electronic format stored by the City. It is likely you stored these somewhere as Word documents. It will be extremely difficult to argue Word documents are information security records or contain IP addresses or passwords or similar. Remember that the Ordinance prohibits the public interest balancing test, deliberative process exemption, and all similar exemptions, and also much weakens the draft exemption. Include any tracked changes if they are stored in the record. This request is for records anywhere in the Mayor's Office, not solely those possessed by or written by Mayor Breed herself. Withholding tracked changes or author identity will also be appealed.

3. Regular disclosure: Every version of every record in #2, exported to a PDF format. Remember that the Ordinance prohibits the public interest balancing test, deliberative process exemption, and all similar exemptions, and also much weakens the draft exemption. You do not have to produce #3 if you produce #2 for any given record. However, refusing #2 while producing #3 will still lead to an appeal of #2. If the original record contains tracked changes, export those to PDF as well (this is a view in Word that you can print to PDF). Withholding tracked changes or author identity will also be appealed.

--Anonymous

Filed via MuckRock.com
E-mail (Preferred): requests@muckrock.com<mailto:requests@muckrock.com>
Upload documents directly: https://accounts.muckrock.com/accounts/login/?next=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.muckrock.com%2Faccounts%2Flogin%2F%3Fnext%3D%252Faccounts%252Fagency_login%252Foffice-of-the-mayor-3891%252Fmayors-notes-immediate-disclosure-request-81856%252F%253Femail%253Dmayorsunshinerequests%252540sfgov.org&url_auth_token=AAAxJKbo2Vje5U7JJiIkNXfIXyg%3A1iQNK8%3APZgRuGjm7WLYmbiRcCbCbjXzfyY
Is this email coming to the wrong contact? Something else wrong? Use the above link to let us know.

For mailed responses, please address (see note):
MuckRock News
DEPT MR 81856
411A Highland Ave
Somerville, MA 02144-2516

PLEASE NOTE: This request is not filed by a MuckRock staff member, but is being sent through MuckRock by the above in order to better track, share, and manage public records requests. Also note that improperly addressed (i.e., with the requester's name rather than "MuckRock News" and the department number) requests might be returned as undeliverable.

---

On Oct. 31, 2019:
Subject: RE: California Public Records Act Request: Mayor's Notes - Immediate Disclosure Request
Anonymous,

Further to your clarification of the request below and forward dating to October 30, please the attached responsive records to Item 2.

We have not located any records responsive to Item 3.
Regards,

Hank Heckel
Compliance Officer
Office of the Mayor
City and County of San Francisco
---

On Oct. 29, 2019:
Subject: RE: California Public Records Act Request: Mayor's Notes - Immediate Disclosure Request
Immediate Disclosure Request - Oct. 30

Sorry, let me clarify. You are correct that merely signed documents do not qualify. But documents where she wrote/typed a part of the document would qualify. It is also possible none of those exist either, so let me restate a new IDR for better clarity:

2. IMMEDIATE DISCLOSURE: an electronic copy (in PDF format, without printing physically and scanning) of the last 5 business electronic writings (whether Word documents, emails, text messages, chat messages, etc.) written by the Mayor individually in any part (but not solely by virtue of her signature). If no such electronic writings exist, you must indicate there are no responsive records.

3. IMMEDIATE DISCLOSURE: personal property responsive to #2 containing public business, from the Mayor, per City of San Jose v Superior Court

You may forward-date this new IDR to Oct. 30.

The request from Oct 17 is considered complete.
Thanks,
Anonymous
---

From: Office of the Mayor

Dear Anonymous,

Please see the attached draft versions of executive directives, responsive to Item 3 in your request below. These records are being produced in a PDF format to protect the integrity and security of the original record and to avoid the unwarranted disclosure of data that could pose a risk to the city's systems and network and/or the inadvertent disclosure of exempt confidential or privileged information. See Cal. Gov. Code 6253.9 (a)(1), (f) and 6254.19. This position is also consistent with the memorandum from the San Francisco City Attorney's Office to the Sunshine Task Force, attached, addressing this issue. PDFs are provided for all of the reasons set forth therein.

Regarding the "NRA" memo, we have not located any other versions than the one previously produced and to the extent there are draft versions, they would likely be exempt as attorney/client privileged and/or attorney work product in connection with litigation. See Gov't Code § 6254(k); Evid. Code § 954; Code of Civ. Proc. § 2018.030; Gov't Code § 6276.04; Admin. Code § 67.21(k).

We have completed our response to all Items in your request below.

Please note that we are responding on behalf of the Office of the Mayor only and not on behalf of other city departments.
Regards,

Hank Heckel
Compliance Officer
Office of the Mayor
City and County of San Francisco

  • Executive Directive 18_02_Employment Diversity unsigned

  • ADU Executive Directive 18_01_FINAL unsigned

  • DRAFT EXECUTIVE DIRECTIVE - Special Events Steering Committee_v4

  • DRAFT EXECUTIVE DIRECTIVE - Special Events Steering Committee_v3

  • DRAFT EXECUTIVE DIRECTIVE - Special Events Steering Committee_v2

  • DRAFT EXECUTIVE DIRECTIVE - Special Events Steering Committee_v1

  • DRAFT EXECUTIVE DIRECTIVE - Special Events Steering Committee_v5 no e-sig

  • Executive Directive 18_04 Air Quality Emergency Response unsigned

  • Executive Directive 18_03_ Inclusive Identification unsigned

  • Providing-Electronic-Records-in-PDF-Rather-than-Word-Format-When-Responding-to-a-Public-Records-Request

From: Anonymous Person

Thank you. Please clarify:

> Regarding the "NRA" memo, we have not located any other versions than the one previously produced and to the extent there are draft versions, they would likely be exempt as attorney/client privileged and/or attorney work product in connection with litigation. See Gov't Code § 6254(k); Evid. Code § 954; Code of Civ. Proc. § 2018.030; Gov't Code § 6276.04; Admin. Code § 67.21(k).

Are you asserting a record(s) was withheld under those privileges, or not? A document is either privileged or not. If you have not examined a document and determined it is exempt I'm not sure what you are asserting here.

Also, as you know, I will challenge all metadata or format withholdings by the City. A City Attorney memorandum is not a legal basis for justification under SFAC 67.27, but your citation of Cal. Gov. Code 6253.9 (a)(1), (f) and 6254.19 is noted.

Sincerely,
Anonymous

From: Office of the Mayor

Dear Anonymous,

To clarify, we have not located any draft versions of the NRA memo in the Office of the Mayor. I am not invoking a privilege but merely advising that there may be privilege/work product issues to the extent that drafts exist within other city departments.

Thank you,

Hank Heckel
Compliance Officer
Office of the Mayor
City and County of San Francisco

From: Anonymous Person

Mayor Breed, Hank Heckel, Office of the Mayor:

In light of recent SOTF proceedings, I am requesting that you reconsider your refusal to provide the full, original Word document(s) of all versions of the Supporting Special Events memo, with all tracked changes (if any) and metadata. The metadata in a word document is not only a "writing" in the "record thereby created" sense, but much of it is also a writing as directly written by a human being. If you do not provide them, I will appeal this series of requests. My purpose is to get the full tracked changes and understand who did what when, and get all the timestamps, subject, authors, categories, tags, and other similar metadata.

We know that you have preserved them and did not discard them, and we know that you provided the non-final versions before and thus waived any supposed draft exemptions (which I do not concede apply at all).

The only thing left is the format and metadata like author/timestamps/keywords. You would have to prove that the Word document format is some sort of security threat, which seems difficult to prove barring the embedding of active objects. If you did prove that, you would then also have to prove that all metadata in word file is also a threat or otherwise exempt.
Finally, the SOTF has seen through the specious argument made by both you and the City Attorney that somehow a copy of a document allows the public to change the original one stored on your computers.

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

Anonymous

From: Office of the Mayor

Anonymous,

We are reviewing your request and the Word files to determine whether there is any non-exempt material to produce and we will get back to you.
Regards,

Hank Heckel
Compliance Officer
Office of the Mayor
City and County of San Francisco

From: Anonymous Person

Thank you. If you intend to continue to withhold them, I hope the City presents a much more solid computer security argument.
As the SOTF Chair stated many months ago, in questions of technology, objective, provable answers are possible; and if the City wants to make infosec claims, it should be able to bring documentation proving its case, because otherwise I will prove mine.

Also here is a Motion passed by the Board over 13 years ago: https://sfgov.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=F&ID=2584664&GUID=1626DF79-4AF7-46AF-B9DA-3CAFE76B1A55 to release documents in the format requested.

I'm not the first who has fought for metadata, and I will not be the last.

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

--Anonymous

From: Anonymous Person

What happened here?

From: Anonymous Person

Mayor London Breed and Office of Mayor:

Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)). Your initial response is required by Feb 17, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce all records. Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not or print and scan electronic records or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide EMLs/MSGs of emails (if any). If you refuse to provide non-PDF formats (which I do not concede to unless PDF is the sole format retained by you), use full-fidelity "PDFMaker" PDFs. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).

Your non-exhaustive obligations: All withholding of any information must be justified (SFAC 67.27). All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to justification and only the minimal exempt portion of a record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26). Respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)). You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)). You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)). You must do all of this in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints. If you wait to comply with the Sunshine Ordinance until after we file complaints, we will not withdraw any complaints and request SOTF find you in violation, regardless of what you do after filing.

****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until your procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******

1. The most recent executive directive signed by the Mayor - provide in any electronic format except printing and scanning.

Please indicate "no responsive records" for each request if that is true.
Personal property pursuant to City of San Jose v Superior Court (2017) must be searched.

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

Sincerely,

Anonymous

From: Anonymous Person

Mayor London Breed, Hank Heckel, and Office of Mayor:

Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)). Your initial response is required by Feb 17, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce all records. Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not or print and scan electronic records or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide EMLs/MSGs of emails (if any). If you refuse to provide non-PDF formats (which I do not concede to unless PDF is the sole format retained by you), use full-fidelity "PDFMaker" PDFs. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).

Your non-exhaustive obligations: All withholding of any information must be justified (SFAC 67.27). All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to justification and only the minimal exempt portion of a record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26). Respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)). You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)). You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)). You must do all of this in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints. If you wait to comply with the Sunshine Ordinance until after we file complaints, we will not withdraw any complaints and request SOTF find you in violation, regardless of what you do after filing.

****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until your procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******

2. The most recent 5 communications sent by London Breed (NOT her generic MONS list) and received by Hank Heckel of any kind in any form.
3. The most recent 5 communications sent by Hank Heckel and received by London Breed (NOT her generic MONS list) of any kind in any form.

Please indicate "no responsive records" for each request if that is true.
Personal property pursuant to City of San Jose v Superior Court (2017) must be searched.

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

Sincerely,

Anonymous

Files

pages

Close