Public Integrity Communications (SF Controller) - Immediate Disclosure Request

Anonymous Person filed this request with the San Francisco Controller's Office of San Francisco, CA.
Status
Completed
Tags

Communications

From: Anonymous Person

Controller's Office:

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

Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency and its department head.
Your initial response is required by Feb 20, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. 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 in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must 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)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in.

Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.

****** 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 the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******

1. All communications sent to the publicintegrity@sfgov.org email address since Jan 21, 2020 until present.
2. Please also provide an SFAC 67.21(c) written statement of the existence or quantity of these emails in #1 (even if you believe their contents to be exempt) within 7 days (no extensions)

Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.

Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.

Sincerely,
Anonymous

From: San Francisco Controller's Office

Dear Anonymous:

Your request has been received - we will be in touch with more information.
Best,

The Office of the Controller

From: San Francisco Controller's Office

Dear Anonymous:

Regarding question one, our Office's response is as follows: All records responsive to your request are confidential and exempt from disclosure under Charter sections F1.107(c) and F1.110(b), San Francisco Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code, Article IV, sections 4.120 and 4.123, Evidence Code sections 1040 and 1041, and Government Code section 6254(c).
Best,

The Office of the Controller

From: Anonymous Person

Thank you for your response.

Neither the San Francisco charter nor SF Campaign/Government Code can exempt information that would not be exempt under the state CPRA, but your citations to EC 1040, 1041, and GC 6254(c) are noted. Local law can only make the city more transparent, not less.

While you are free to withhold the identity of whistleblowers under EC 1041, I dispute the citation of GC 6254(c) and EC 1040.

EC 1040 requires that either disclosure be prohibited by some other law, or you are using the balancing test. What law *prohibits* all disclosure of emails to this address?

GC 6254(c) would not exempt any emails from non-City employees employees or any allegations against non-City employees (such as alleged conspirators not employed by CCSF).

Will you stick to this citation for *all* parts of *all* responsive records?

Furthermore please know that you must provide the quantity of records *even if you believe they are exempt* within 7 days (see SFAC 67.21(c)).

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

From: San Francisco Controller's Office

Dear Anonymous:
This email is in response to part II of MuckRock Request 88337-02999056, received by the Office of the Controller on February 19, 2020. Your original request had two parts:
I. All communications sent to the publicintegrity@sfgov.org<mailto:publicintegrity@sfgov.org> email address since Jan 21, 2020 until present.
II. A written statement of the existence or quantity of these emails (even if you believe their contents to be exempt).

The email address referenced in part I has received 17 confidential tips since January 21, 2020 until present.

In response to your other questions, we believe the provisions we cited in our previous email bar us from disclosing anything further. Members of the public who contact us under these circumstances have a right to privacy that we respect and protect, and we also cannot jeopardize the investigation by revealing its substance. We thank you for your interest but cannot comment any further at this time.
Best,

The Office of the Controller

From: Anonymous Person

Office of the Controller,

The following are immediate disclosure requests. Please provide rolling responses if you cannot provide all records immediately.

None of the following are employees of your agency, but your office might be in possession of these records nonetheless. You must also indicate whether or not these records exist (independently of whether you are withholding them):

1. All text, email, or chat messages (including group messages, in any form or application including but not limited to SMS, MMS, WhatsApp, WeChat, Signal, Instagram, Twitter, Facebook, Hangouts, Skype, Teams) sent or received to/cc/bcc/from between Harlan Kelly Jr. and London Breed, on government or personal accounts from Jan 1, 2015 and present (you must search personal accounts pursuant to City of San Jose v Superior Court (2017))

2. All text, email, or chat messages (including group messages, in any form or application including but not limited to SMS, MMS, WhatsApp, WeChat, Signal, Instagram, Twitter, Facebook, Hangouts, Skype, Teams) sent or received to/cc/bcc/from between Harlan Kelly Jr. and Mohammed Nuru, on government or personal accounts from Jan 1, 2015 and present (you must search personal accounts pursuant to City of San Jose v Superior Court (2017))

3. All text, email, or chat messages (including group messages, in any form or application including but not limited to SMS, MMS, WhatsApp, WeChat, Signal, Instagram, Twitter, Facebook, Hangouts, Skype, Teams) sent or received to/cc/bcc/from between Harlan Kelly Jr. and Walter Wong/Jaidin Consulting Group, on government or personal accounts from Jan 1, 2015 and present (you must search personal accounts pursuant to City of San Jose v Superior Court (2017))

4. All text, email, or chat messages (including group messages, in any form or application including but not limited to SMS, MMS, WhatsApp, WeChat, Signal, Instagram, Twitter, Facebook, Hangouts, Skype, Teams) sent or received to/cc/bcc/from between Naomi Kelly and London Breed, on government or personal accounts from Jan 1, 2015 and present (you must search personal accounts pursuant to City of San Jose v Superior Court (2017))

5. All text, email, or chat messages (including group messages, in any form or application including but not limited to SMS, MMS, WhatsApp, WeChat, Signal, Instagram, Twitter, Facebook, Hangouts, Skype, Teams) sent or received to/cc/bcc/from between Naomi Kelly and Mohammed Nuru, on government or personal accounts from Jan 1, 2015 and present (you must search personal accounts pursuant to City of San Jose v Superior Court (2017))

6. All text, email, or chat messages (including group messages, in any form or application including but not limited to SMS, MMS, WhatsApp, WeChat, Signal, Instagram, Twitter, Facebook, Hangouts, Skype, Teams) sent or received to/cc/bcc/from between Naomi Kelly and Walter Wong/Jaidin Consulting Group, on government or personal accounts from Jan 1, 2015 and present (you must search personal accounts pursuant to City of San Jose v Superior Court (2017))

7. All text, email, or chat messages (including group messages, in any form or application including but not limited to SMS, MMS, WhatsApp, WeChat, Signal, Instagram, Twitter, Facebook, Hangouts, Skype, Teams) sent or received to/cc/bcc/from between Naomi Kelly and Harlan Kelly Jr., on government or personal accounts from Jan 1, 2015 and present (you must search personal accounts pursuant to City of San Jose v Superior Court (2017))

Your initial response is required by June 12, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. 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 in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must 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)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in.

Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.

****** 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 the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******

Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.

Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.

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

Sincerely,
Anonymous

From: San Francisco Controller's Office

Dear Anonymous,

All records responsive to your request are confidential and exempt from disclosure under Charter sections F1.107(c) and F1.110(b), San Francisco Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code, Article IV, sections 4.120 and 4.123, Evidence Code sections 1040 and 1041, and Government Code section 6254(c) and 6255(a).
Best,

The Office of the Controller

From: Anonymous Person

Supervisor of Records,

This is a new SFAC 67.21(d) petition for a determination that some or all of the records requested below are public, and an order for their disclosure against the Controller's Office.

All records requested were denied carte blanche under: Charter sections F1.107(c) and F1.110(b), San Francisco Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code, Article IV, sections 4.120 and 4.123, Evidence Code sections 1040 and 1041, and Government Code section 6254(c) and 6255(a).

Local law, namely Charter sections F1.107(c) and F1.110(b), San Francisco Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code, Article IV, sections 4.120 and 4.123, cannot exempt any additional information that isn't exempt under

It is unclear which of these records are in the custody of the Office and/or which records are being denied under which of the justifications. Note that the subjects are not employees of the Office, but are records that may be in the custody of the Office nonetheless (as Herrera's office perviously turned over to me as public records messages between Tom Hui and Walter Wong).

The records requested were as follows:

1. All text, email, or chat messages (including group messages, in any form or application including but not limited to SMS, MMS, WhatsApp, WeChat, Signal, Instagram, Twitter, Facebook, Hangouts, Skype, Teams) sent or received to/cc/bcc/from between Harlan Kelly Jr. and London Breed, on government or personal accounts from Jan 1, 2015 and present (you must search personal accounts pursuant to City of San Jose v Superior Court (2017))

2. All text, email, or chat messages (including group messages, in any form or application including but not limited to SMS, MMS, WhatsApp, WeChat, Signal, Instagram, Twitter, Facebook, Hangouts, Skype, Teams) sent or received to/cc/bcc/from between Harlan Kelly Jr. and Mohammed Nuru, on government or personal accounts from Jan 1, 2015 and present (you must search personal accounts pursuant to City of San Jose v Superior Court (2017))

3. All text, email, or chat messages (including group messages, in any form or application including but not limited to SMS, MMS, WhatsApp, WeChat, Signal, Instagram, Twitter, Facebook, Hangouts, Skype, Teams) sent or received to/cc/bcc/from between Harlan Kelly Jr. and Walter Wong/Jaidin Consulting Group, on government or personal accounts from Jan 1, 2015 and present (you must search personal accounts pursuant to City of San Jose v Superior Court (2017))

4. All text, email, or chat messages (including group messages, in any form or application including but not limited to SMS, MMS, WhatsApp, WeChat, Signal, Instagram, Twitter, Facebook, Hangouts, Skype, Teams) sent or received to/cc/bcc/from between Naomi Kelly and London Breed, on government or personal accounts from Jan 1, 2015 and present (you must search personal accounts pursuant to City of San Jose v Superior Court (2017))

5. All text, email, or chat messages (including group messages, in any form or application including but not limited to SMS, MMS, WhatsApp, WeChat, Signal, Instagram, Twitter, Facebook, Hangouts, Skype, Teams) sent or received to/cc/bcc/from between Naomi Kelly and Mohammed Nuru, on government or personal accounts from Jan 1, 2015 and present (you must search personal accounts pursuant to City of San Jose v Superior Court (2017))

6. All text, email, or chat messages (including group messages, in any form or application including but not limited to SMS, MMS, WhatsApp, WeChat, Signal, Instagram, Twitter, Facebook, Hangouts, Skype, Teams) sent or received to/cc/bcc/from between Naomi Kelly and Walter Wong/Jaidin Consulting Group, on government or personal accounts from Jan 1, 2015 and present (you must search personal accounts pursuant to City of San Jose v Superior Court (2017))

7. All text, email, or chat messages (including group messages, in any form or application including but not limited to SMS, MMS, WhatsApp, WeChat, Signal, Instagram, Twitter, Facebook, Hangouts, Skype, Teams) sent or received to/cc/bcc/from between Naomi Kelly and Harlan Kelly Jr., on government or personal accounts from Jan 1, 2015 and present (you must search personal accounts pursuant to City of San Jose v Superior Court (2017))

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

Sincerely,
Anonymous

From: Anonymous Person

Supervisor of Records,

This is a new SFAC 67.21(d) petition for a determination that some or all of the records requested below are public, and an order for their disclosure against the Controller's Office.

All records requested were denied carte blanche under: Charter sections F1.107(c) and F1.110(b), San Francisco Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code, Article IV, sections 4.120 and 4.123, Evidence Code sections 1040 and 1041, and Government Code section 6254(c) and 6255(a).

Local law, namely Charter sections F1.107(c) and F1.110(b), San Francisco Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code, Article IV, sections 4.120 and 4.123, cannot exempt any additional information that isn't exempt under the CPRA.

It is unclear which of these records are in the custody of the Office and/or which records are being denied under which of the justifications. Note that the subjects are not employees of the Office, but are records that may be in the custody of the Office nonetheless (as Herrera's office perviously turned over to me as public records messages between Tom Hui and Walter Wong).

The records requested were as follows:

1. All text, email, or chat messages (including group messages, in any form or application including but not limited to SMS, MMS, WhatsApp, WeChat, Signal, Instagram, Twitter, Facebook, Hangouts, Skype, Teams) sent or received to/cc/bcc/from between Harlan Kelly Jr. and London Breed, on government or personal accounts from Jan 1, 2015 and present (you must search personal accounts pursuant to City of San Jose v Superior Court (2017))

2. All text, email, or chat messages (including group messages, in any form or application including but not limited to SMS, MMS, WhatsApp, WeChat, Signal, Instagram, Twitter, Facebook, Hangouts, Skype, Teams) sent or received to/cc/bcc/from between Harlan Kelly Jr. and Mohammed Nuru, on government or personal accounts from Jan 1, 2015 and present (you must search personal accounts pursuant to City of San Jose v Superior Court (2017))

3. All text, email, or chat messages (including group messages, in any form or application including but not limited to SMS, MMS, WhatsApp, WeChat, Signal, Instagram, Twitter, Facebook, Hangouts, Skype, Teams) sent or received to/cc/bcc/from between Harlan Kelly Jr. and Walter Wong/Jaidin Consulting Group, on government or personal accounts from Jan 1, 2015 and present (you must search personal accounts pursuant to City of San Jose v Superior Court (2017))

4. All text, email, or chat messages (including group messages, in any form or application including but not limited to SMS, MMS, WhatsApp, WeChat, Signal, Instagram, Twitter, Facebook, Hangouts, Skype, Teams) sent or received to/cc/bcc/from between Naomi Kelly and London Breed, on government or personal accounts from Jan 1, 2015 and present (you must search personal accounts pursuant to City of San Jose v Superior Court (2017))

5. All text, email, or chat messages (including group messages, in any form or application including but not limited to SMS, MMS, WhatsApp, WeChat, Signal, Instagram, Twitter, Facebook, Hangouts, Skype, Teams) sent or received to/cc/bcc/from between Naomi Kelly and Mohammed Nuru, on government or personal accounts from Jan 1, 2015 and present (you must search personal accounts pursuant to City of San Jose v Superior Court (2017))

6. All text, email, or chat messages (including group messages, in any form or application including but not limited to SMS, MMS, WhatsApp, WeChat, Signal, Instagram, Twitter, Facebook, Hangouts, Skype, Teams) sent or received to/cc/bcc/from between Naomi Kelly and Walter Wong/Jaidin Consulting Group, on government or personal accounts from Jan 1, 2015 and present (you must search personal accounts pursuant to City of San Jose v Superior Court (2017))

7. All text, email, or chat messages (including group messages, in any form or application including but not limited to SMS, MMS, WhatsApp, WeChat, Signal, Instagram, Twitter, Facebook, Hangouts, Skype, Teams) sent or received to/cc/bcc/from between Naomi Kelly and Harlan Kelly Jr., on government or personal accounts from Jan 1, 2015 and present (you must search personal accounts pursuant to City of San Jose v Superior Court (2017))

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

Sincerely,
Anonymous

From: Anonymous Person

SOTF,

This is a new complaint: Anonymous v Ben Rosenfield and Office of the Controller. Please provide a file number.

Alleged Violations: CPRA Gov Code 6253(c)(3) - failure to identify who denied my records request, SFAC 67.21 incomplete response, SFAC 67.26 nonminimal withholding, SFAC 67.27 unjustified withholding.

All records I requested (see below) were denied carte blanche under: Charter sections F1.107(c) and F1.110(b), San Francisco Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code, Article IV, sections 4.120 and 4.123, Evidence Code sections 1040 and 1041, and Government Code section 6254(c) and 6255(a).

CPRA Gov Code 6253(c)(3) - When providing a written denial, Respondent is required to "set forth the names and titles or positions of each person responsible for the denial". They did not do so.

SFAC 67.27 - Local law, namely Charter sections F1.107(c) and F1.110(b), San Francisco Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code, Article IV, sections 4.120 and 4.123, cannot exempt any additional information that isn't exempt under the CPRA. Local law can only eliminate the exemptions, not add more. These justifications are unlawful, and whatever was exempted under them must be disclosed.

SFAC 67.21 - It is unclear which of these records are in the custody (or not) of the Office and/or which records are being denied under which of the justifications. Note that the subjects are not employees of the Office, but are records that may be in the custody of the Office nonetheless (as Herrera's office perviously turned over to me as public records messages between Tom Hui and Walter Wong). Respondents should identify which exemptions apply to which of the 7 requests, and which simply don't exist.

SFAC 67.26 - Only the exempt portions of these records should be withheld, not all of the records.

The records requested were as follows:

1. All text, email, or chat messages (including group messages, in any form or application including but not limited to SMS, MMS, WhatsApp, WeChat, Signal, Instagram, Twitter, Facebook, Hangouts, Skype, Teams) sent or received to/cc/bcc/from between Harlan Kelly Jr. and London Breed, on government or personal accounts from Jan 1, 2015 and present (you must search personal accounts pursuant to City of San Jose v Superior Court (2017))

2. All text, email, or chat messages (including group messages, in any form or application including but not limited to SMS, MMS, WhatsApp, WeChat, Signal, Instagram, Twitter, Facebook, Hangouts, Skype, Teams) sent or received to/cc/bcc/from between Harlan Kelly Jr. and Mohammed Nuru, on government or personal accounts from Jan 1, 2015 and present (you must search personal accounts pursuant to City of San Jose v Superior Court (2017))

3. All text, email, or chat messages (including group messages, in any form or application including but not limited to SMS, MMS, WhatsApp, WeChat, Signal, Instagram, Twitter, Facebook, Hangouts, Skype, Teams) sent or received to/cc/bcc/from between Harlan Kelly Jr. and Walter Wong/Jaidin Consulting Group, on government or personal accounts from Jan 1, 2015 and present (you must search personal accounts pursuant to City of San Jose v Superior Court (2017))

4. All text, email, or chat messages (including group messages, in any form or application including but not limited to SMS, MMS, WhatsApp, WeChat, Signal, Instagram, Twitter, Facebook, Hangouts, Skype, Teams) sent or received to/cc/bcc/from between Naomi Kelly and London Breed, on government or personal accounts from Jan 1, 2015 and present (you must search personal accounts pursuant to City of San Jose v Superior Court (2017))

5. All text, email, or chat messages (including group messages, in any form or application including but not limited to SMS, MMS, WhatsApp, WeChat, Signal, Instagram, Twitter, Facebook, Hangouts, Skype, Teams) sent or received to/cc/bcc/from between Naomi Kelly and Mohammed Nuru, on government or personal accounts from Jan 1, 2015 and present (you must search personal accounts pursuant to City of San Jose v Superior Court (2017))

6. All text, email, or chat messages (including group messages, in any form or application including but not limited to SMS, MMS, WhatsApp, WeChat, Signal, Instagram, Twitter, Facebook, Hangouts, Skype, Teams) sent or received to/cc/bcc/from between Naomi Kelly and Walter Wong/Jaidin Consulting Group, on government or personal accounts from Jan 1, 2015 and present (you must search personal accounts pursuant to City of San Jose v Superior Court (2017))

7. All text, email, or chat messages (including group messages, in any form or application including but not limited to SMS, MMS, WhatsApp, WeChat, Signal, Instagram, Twitter, Facebook, Hangouts, Skype, Teams) sent or received to/cc/bcc/from between Naomi Kelly and Harlan Kelly Jr., on government or personal accounts from Jan 1, 2015 and present (you must search personal accounts pursuant to City of San Jose v Superior Court (2017))

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

Sincerely,
Anonymous

From:

To Whom It May Concern:

I write to acknowledge receipt of your petition. Due to the COVID-19 emergency, the Mayor has suspended<https://sfmayor.org/sites/default/files/032320_FifthSupplement.pdf> provisions of the Sunshine Ordinance, including the deadline for the Supervisor of Records to make a determination on a petition. We will look into the issues raised in your petition as soon as we are able. 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: Anonymous Person

Office of the Controller,

The following are immediate disclosure requests. Please provide rolling responses if you cannot provide all records immediately.

None of the following are employees of your agency, but your office might be in possession of these records nonetheless. You must also indicate whether or not these records exist (independently of whether you are withholding them):

1. The Mayor's Office turned over to us the following public records of 2018-2020 communications between the Mayor's staff (using their personal email accounts) and Walter Wong/Jaidin Consulting Group regarding sponsorship of the Mayor's parade floats: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6938175-Anonymous-Request-Response-6-5-20-Redacted.html - this request is for any copies in your Office's possession of those same email threads (for example, perhaps with less redaction, or more messages in those same threads).

Your initial response is required by July 2, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. 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 in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must 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)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in.

Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.

****** 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 the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******

Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations.

Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.

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

Sincerely,
Anonymous

From: San Francisco Controller's Office

Dear Anonymous: I am in receipt of and thank you for your emailed Complaint form. Please also provide the initial request and any subsequent responses so that I can open a file. Thank you.

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: Anonymous Person

Cheryl,

I already submitted the body/attachments for this complaint on June 19. You can see a copy here: https://www.muckrock.com/foi/san-francisco-141/public-integrity-communications-sf-controller-immediate-disclosure-request-88337/#comm-901088

--Anonymous

From: San Francisco Controller's Office

Hello Anonymous: I am in receipt of and thank you for your new Complaint Form. Please send me your initial request, the Controller's response and responsive documents. Upon receipt I will open a complaint file for you. Happy 4th.

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: Anonymous Person

Below is a copy of my June 19th complaint from this email address:

SOTF,

This is a new complaint: Anonymous v Ben Rosenfield and Office of the Controller. Please provide a file number.

Alleged Violations: CPRA Gov Code 6253(c)(3) - failure to identify who denied my records request, SFAC 67.21 incomplete response, SFAC 67.26 nonminimal withholding, SFAC 67.27 unjustified withholding.

All records I requested (see below) were denied carte blanche under: Charter sections F1.107(c) and F1.110(b), San Francisco Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code, Article IV, sections 4.120 and 4.123, Evidence Code sections 1040 and 1041, and Government Code section 6254(c) and 6255(a).

CPRA Gov Code 6253(c)(3) - When providing a written denial, Respondent is required to "set forth the names and titles or positions of each person responsible for the denial". They did not do so.

SFAC 67.27 - Local law, namely Charter sections F1.107(c) and F1.110(b), San Francisco Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code, Article IV, sections 4.120 and 4.123, cannot exempt any additional information that isn't exempt under the CPRA. Local law can only eliminate the exemptions, not add more. These justifications are unlawful, and whatever was exempted under them must be disclosed.

SFAC 67.21 - It is unclear which of these records are in the custody (or not) of the Office and/or which records are being denied under which of the justifications. Note that the subjects are not employees of the Office, but are records that may be in the custody of the Office nonetheless (as Herrera's office perviously turned over to me as public records messages between Tom Hui and Walter Wong). Respondents should identify which exemptions apply to which of the 7 requests, and which simply don't exist.

SFAC 67.26 - Only the exempt portions of these records should be withheld, not all of the records.

The records requested were as follows:

1. All text, email, or chat messages (including group messages, in any form or application including but not limited to SMS, MMS, WhatsApp, WeChat, Signal, Instagram, Twitter, Facebook, Hangouts, Skype, Teams) sent or received to/cc/bcc/from between Harlan Kelly Jr. and London Breed, on government or personal accounts from Jan 1, 2015 and present (you must search personal accounts pursuant to City of San Jose v Superior Court (2017))

2. All text, email, or chat messages (including group messages, in any form or application including but not limited to SMS, MMS, WhatsApp, WeChat, Signal, Instagram, Twitter, Facebook, Hangouts, Skype, Teams) sent or received to/cc/bcc/from between Harlan Kelly Jr. and Mohammed Nuru, on government or personal accounts from Jan 1, 2015 and present (you must search personal accounts pursuant to City of San Jose v Superior Court (2017))

3. All text, email, or chat messages (including group messages, in any form or application including but not limited to SMS, MMS, WhatsApp, WeChat, Signal, Instagram, Twitter, Facebook, Hangouts, Skype, Teams) sent or received to/cc/bcc/from between Harlan Kelly Jr. and Walter Wong/Jaidin Consulting Group, on government or personal accounts from Jan 1, 2015 and present (you must search personal accounts pursuant to City of San Jose v Superior Court (2017))

4. All text, email, or chat messages (including group messages, in any form or application including but not limited to SMS, MMS, WhatsApp, WeChat, Signal, Instagram, Twitter, Facebook, Hangouts, Skype, Teams) sent or received to/cc/bcc/from between Naomi Kelly and London Breed, on government or personal accounts from Jan 1, 2015 and present (you must search personal accounts pursuant to City of San Jose v Superior Court (2017))

5. All text, email, or chat messages (including group messages, in any form or application including but not limited to SMS, MMS, WhatsApp, WeChat, Signal, Instagram, Twitter, Facebook, Hangouts, Skype, Teams) sent or received to/cc/bcc/from between Naomi Kelly and Mohammed Nuru, on government or personal accounts from Jan 1, 2015 and present (you must search personal accounts pursuant to City of San Jose v Superior Court (2017))

6. All text, email, or chat messages (including group messages, in any form or application including but not limited to SMS, MMS, WhatsApp, WeChat, Signal, Instagram, Twitter, Facebook, Hangouts, Skype, Teams) sent or received to/cc/bcc/from between Naomi Kelly and Walter Wong/Jaidin Consulting Group, on government or personal accounts from Jan 1, 2015 and present (you must search personal accounts pursuant to City of San Jose v Superior Court (2017))

7. All text, email, or chat messages (including group messages, in any form or application including but not limited to SMS, MMS, WhatsApp, WeChat, Signal, Instagram, Twitter, Facebook, Hangouts, Skype, Teams) sent or received to/cc/bcc/from between Naomi Kelly and Harlan Kelly Jr., on government or personal accounts from Jan 1, 2015 and present (you must search personal accounts pursuant to City of San Jose v Superior Court (2017))

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

Sincerely,
Anonymous

From: San Francisco Controller's Office

Dear Anonymous Requestor,

This message confirms receipt to your request. Our response is pending & requires further research.

Respectfully,

The Office of the Controller

From: Anonymous Person

Thank you.

From: San Francisco Controller's Office

Dear Anonymous,

All records responsive to your request are confidential and exempt from disclosure under Charter sections F1.107(c) and F1.110(b), San Francisco Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code, Article IV, sections 4.120 and 4.123, Evidence Code sections 1040 and 1041, and Government Code section 6254(c).
Best,

The Office of the Controller

From: Anonymous Person

Supervisor of Records Herrera,

This supplements my prior 67.21(d) petition from this email address.

The Controller also denied the following request:

1. The Mayor's Office turned over to us the following public records of 2018-2020 communications between the Mayor's staff (using their personal email accounts) and Walter Wong/Jaidin Consulting Group regarding sponsorship of the Mayor's parade floats: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6938175-Anonymous-Request-Response-6-5-20-Redacted.html - this request is for any copies in your Office's possession of those same email threads (for example, perhaps with less redaction, or more messages in those same threads).

All records I requested (see below) were denied carte blanche under: Charter sections F1.107(c) and F1.110(b), San Francisco Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code, Article IV, sections 4.120 and 4.123, Evidence Code sections 1040 and 1041, and Government Code section 6254(c).

CPRA Gov Code 6253(c)(3) - When providing a written denial, Respondent is required to "set forth the names and titles or positions of each person responsible for the denial". They did not do so.

SFAC 67.27 - Local law, namely Charter sections F1.107(c) and F1.110(b), San Francisco Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code, Article IV, sections 4.120 and 4.123, cannot exempt any additional information that isn't exempt under the CPRA. Local law can only eliminate the exemptions, not add more. These justifications are unlawful, and whatever was exempted under them must be disclosed.

SFAC 67.21 - It is unclear which of these records are in the custody (or not) of the Office and/or which records are being denied under which of the justifications. Note that the subjects are not employees of the Office, but are records that may be in the custody of the Office nonetheless (as Herrera's office perviously turned over to me as public records messages between Tom Hui and Walter Wong). Respondents should identify which exemptions apply to which of the 7 requests, and which simply don't exist.

SFAC 67.26 - Only the exempt portions of these records should be withheld, not all of the records.

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

Sincerely,
Anonymous

From: San Francisco Controller's Office

Good Morning:

Ben Rosenfield and the Controller's Office have been named as Respondents in the attached complaint filed with the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force. Please respond to the attached complaint/request within five business days.

The Respondent is required to submit a written response to the allegations including any and all supporting documents, recordings, electronic media, etc., to the Task Force within five (5) business days of receipt of this notice. This is your opportunity to provide a full explanation to allow the Task Force to be fully informed in considering your response prior its meeting.

Please include the following information in your response if applicable:

1. List all relevant records with descriptions that have been provided pursuant to the Complainant request.
2. Date the relevant records were provided to the Complainant.
3. Description of the method used, along with any relevant search terms used, to search for the relevant records.
4. Statement/declaration that all relevant documents have been provided, does not exist, or has been excluded.
5. Copy of the original request for records (if applicable).

Please refer to the File Number when submitting any new information and/or supporting documents pertaining to this complaint.

The Complainant alleges:

Complaint Attached.

Cheryl Leger

Assistant Clerk, Board of Supervisors

Tel: 415-554-7724

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

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

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

From: San Francisco Controller's Office

Hello Anonymous: Attached is the response from the Controller's office to your records request.

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.

Files

pages

Close