CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO OFFICE OF THE CITY ATIORNEY
DENNIS J. HERRERA BRADLEY RUSSI City Attorney Deputy City Attorney
Direct Dial: (415) 554-4645 Email: [email protected]
MEMORANDUM
TO: Honorable Members Sunshine Ordinance Task Force FROM: Bradley Russi -z:J Deputy City Attorney CK._9..._ DATE: January 10, 2019 RE: Nineteenth Annual Report of the Supervisor of Records January 1 to December 31, 2018
The City Attorney's Office submits this report to the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force under Section 67.21(h) of the San Francisco Sunshine Ordinance (S.F. Admin. Code §67.21(h)). That section requires the Supervisor of Records to prepare an annual tally and report for the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force on each petition brought before the Supervisor of Records for access to records. Section 67.21(h) includes the following requirements: The report shall at least identify for each petition the record or records sought, the custodian of those records, the ruling of the supervisor of public records, whether any ruling was overturned by a court and whether orders given to custodians of public records were followed. The report shall also summarize any court actions during that period regarding petitions the Supervisor has decided. At the request of the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force, the report shall also include copies of all rulings made by the supervisor of public records and all opinions issued. Reporting period: This report covers petitions brought before the Supervisor of Records between January 1 - December 31, 2018 (the "reporting period"). Custodian of Records: For the custodian of records, the report generally gives the name of the employee who responded to the request. Court actions: No court decisions issued regarding determinations by the Supervisor of Records for the reporting period. Orders issued: No order from the Supervisor of Records issued to any City department whose records were the subject of a petition. Court Decisions Interpreting or Applying the San Francisco Sunshine Ordinance: At the request of the Task Force, the City Attorney's Office reports additional information about court decisions when it submits the annual report of the Supervisor of Records. We report on any court decision made during the reporting period in a matter in which the City is a party to the action if the decisions interprets or applies the San Francisco Sunshine Ordinance. There is one such case to report for the current reporting period:
CITY HALL, ROOM 234 · l DR. CARLTON B. GOODLffi PLACE • SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94102-4682 RECEPTION: (415) 554-4700 · FACSIMILE: (415) 554-4699
n:\govern\as2016\0100505\0132691 O.doc CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO OFFICE OF THE CITY ATIORNEY MEMORANDUM
TO: Honorable Members Sunshine Ordinance Task Force DATE: January 10, 2019 PAGE: 2 RE: Nineteenth Annual Report of the Supervisor of Records January 1 to December 31, 2018
In SF Urban Forest Coalition v. San Francisco County Transportation Authority, et al., Case No. CPF-18-516020 (S.F. Sup. Ct.), a non-profit corporation brought a petition for writ of mandamus alleging that the San Francisco County Transportation Authority ("SFTCA") improperly withheld records under the Sunshine Ordinance. The plaintiff sought a ruling declaring that SFTCA is a City department subject to the Sunshine Ordinance. On May 8, 2018, the Superior Court denied the petitioner relief, finding that SFTCA is an agency of the State of California and that it is not subject to the Sunshine Ordinance. We attach a copy of the court's order as Attachment A.
DESCRIPTION OF PETITIONS AND THEIR DISPOSITION
1. Petitioner: Fred Bullock Department: Board of Supervisors Records sought: Documents concerning Supervisor Malia Cohen's outreach activities relating to the Indigenous People's Day ordinance Custodian of Records: Sophia Kittler Determination: Department produced responsive records. No determination needed. Date Petition Received: April 6, 2018 Date of Determination: Petition closed on April 17, 2018 A copy of the decision and petition are included on pages 1-3 of the Appendix.
2. Petitioner: Kimo Crossman Department: Department of Technology Records sought: (1) Responses to the Request for Qualifications ("RFQ") for the City Fiber project; (2) communications with the RFQ respondents; (3) summaries of the negotiating positions for the City Fiber project; (4) draft contracts for the City Fiber project; (5) public records requests and responses related to the City Fiber project Custodian of Records: Lauren Jones Determination: Department had no records responsive to categories (2), (3), and (4). Department produced records responsive to category (5). Department properly withheld records responsive to category (1) under
n:\govem\as2016\0l00505\0132691 O.doc CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO OFFICE OF THE CITY ATIORNEY MEMORANDUM
TO: Honorable Members Sunshine Ordinance Task Force DATE: January 10, 2019 PAGE: 3 RE: Nineteenth Annual Report of the Supervisor of Records January 1 to December 31, 2018
Administrative Code Section 67.24(e)(l) and Michaelis, Montanari & Johnson v. Superior Court, 38 Cal.4th 1065 (2006). Date Petition Received: April 17, 2018 Date of Determination: June 12, 2018 A copy of the decision and petition are included on pages 4-20 of the Appendix.
3. Petitioner: Simone Jennings Department: Department of Emergency Management Records sought: Audio recording of a call to 911 Custodian of Records: Anne Raskin Determination: Department did not withhold or redact records. No determination needed. Date Petition Received: June 1, 2018 Date of Determination: Petition closed on June 5, 2018 A copy of the decision and petition are included on pages 21-31 of the Appendix.
4. Petitioner: Anne Treboux Department: Arts Commission Records sought: An index of records related to petitioner's "tone of emails; abusive emails and other related documents" Custodian of Records: Kate Patterson Determination: Department has no responsive records. No determination needed. Date Petition Received: August 20, 2018 Date of Determination: Petition closed on August 22, 2018 A copy of the decision and petition are included on pages 32-34 of the Appendix.
5. Petitioner: Kevin Williams Department: None Records sought: Petitioner sought review of a decision by the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force under 12L.5(b) of the
n:\govem\as2016\0100505\01326910 .doc CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO OFFICE OF THE CITY ATIORNEY MEMORANDUM
TO: Honorable Members Sunshine Ordinance Task Force DATE: January 10, 2019 PAGE: 4 RE: Nineteenth Annual Report of the Supervisor of Records January 1 to December 31, 2018
Administrative Code regarding records requests petitioner made to the Bayview Opera House under Chapter 12L Custodian of Records: None Determination: Supervisor of Records does not have jurisdiction to review decisions of the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force. Records request to a non-profit organization under Administrative Code Chapter 12L is outside the scope of review of the Supervisor of Records. Date Petition Received: August 24, 2018 Date of Determination: September 14, 2018 A copy of the decision and petition are included on pages 35-69 of the Appendix.
6. Petitioner: Lauren Ward Department: Treasurer-Tax Collector Records sought: Records regarding a number of tax refunds Custodian of Records: Theresa Buckley Determination: Department produced responsive records. No determination needed. Date Petition Received: September 6, 2018 Date of Determination: Petition closed on October 1, 2018 A copy of the decision and petition are included on pages 70-86 of the Appendix.
7. Petitioner: F. Freibert Department: Police Department Records sought: Information concerning an arrest that occurred on January 20, 1961 Custodian of Records: Briseida Banuelos Determination: Department properly withheld information not contemporaneous with the arrest under Government Code Sections 6254(f)(l) and 6254(k). Date Petition Received: November 2, 2018 Date of Determination: December 3, 2018
n:\govem\as2016\0l00505\0l326910.doc CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO OFFICE OF THE CITY ATIORNEY MEMORANDUM
TO: Honorable Members Sunshine Ordinance Task Force DATE: January 10, 2019 PAGE: 5 RE: Nineteenth Annual Report of the Supervisor of Records January 1 to December 31, 2018
A copy of the decision and petition are included on pages 87-100 of the Appendix.
8. Petitioner: Michael Petrelis Department: Board of Supervisors Records sought: Supervisor London Breed's calendar Custodian of Records: Wilson Ng Determination: Department properly redacted calendar entries that did not reflect City business, because Section 67.29-5 of the Administrative Code does not require disclosure and because the entries are not public records. Date Petition Received: December 10, 2018 Date of Determination: December 21, 2018 A copy of the decision and petition are included on pages 101-116 of the Appendix.
n:\govern\as2016\0100505\0132691 O.doc
ATTACHMENT A
19th Annual Report of the Supervisor of Records
NOSSAMAN LLP STANLEY S. TAYLOR III (SBN 51955) 2 [email protected] CARLL. BLUMENSTEIN (SBN 124158) Public Agency - 3 [email protected] No Filing Fee Required NA TASHA SAGGAR SHETH (SBN 282896) 4 [email protected] Government Code § 6103 50 California Street, 34th Floor 5 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: 415.398.3600 6 Facsimile: 415.398.2438
7 Attorneys for Respondents SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY SanFILED Francisco County Superior Court TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, TILLY CHANG, and 8 CYNTHIA FONG MAY 0-8 2018 9
10 ~CL~~. putyCtd
11 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 12 FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO - UNLIMITED JURISDICTION 13
14 SF URBAN FOREST COALITION, a Case No: CPF-18-516020 15 California not-for-profit corporation,
16 Petitioner, ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS 17 vs. Hearing Date: May 8, 2018 18 CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, Hearing Time: 9:30 a.m. a charter city and county, SAN FRANCISCO Department: 302 19 COUNTYTRANSPORTATION Judge: Hon. Harold Kahn AUTHORITY, an agency and department of the 20 City and County of San Francisco, TILLY Date Action Filed: January 23, 2018 CHANG, its Executive Director and CYNTHIA 21 FONG, its Deputy Direc_tor for Finance and Administration, officials of the City and County 22 of San Francisco, and DOES 1 through xx, inclusive, 23 Res ondents. 24
25
26
27
28
ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS 56438823.V1 1 This matter came before the Court, on May 8, 2018 at 9:30 a.m. in Department 302.
2 Petitioner SF Urban Forest Coalition's petition for writ of mandate is denied as to all three
3 causes of action alleged by SFUFC. The portions of SFUFC's first and second causes of action
4 seeking declaratory relief that the San Francisco County Transportation Authority is subject to
5 the San Francisco Sunshine Ordinance Jack merit. The SFCTA is an agency of the State of
6 California and thus is exempt from a local ordinance such as the Sunshine Ordinance. Moreover,
7 the language of the Sunshine Ordinance makes clear that the SFCTA is not covered by that
8 Ordinance. SFUFC's argument that the Bay Area Bill provided only "the idea of possibly
9 creating a county transportation agency," and the "framework" for such an agency is
10 unpersuasive and not supported by either the text of the Bay Area Bill or analogous case law.
11 Except for the portions of the first and second causes of action in SFUFC' s petition seeking
12 declaratory relief that the SF CTA is subject the Sunshine Ordinance, all of SFUFC' s claims are
13 moot because SFUFC has acknowledged that it has received all the documents that it requested ·
14 in its petition. / 15
16 IT IS SO ORDERED.
17
18 t() DATED: May _-=-'t:>_, 2018 19 HON. HAROLD KAHN
20 JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COUM" 21
22
23
24
25 26
27
28 -2- ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS 56438823.V1 Russi, Brad (CAn
From: Russi, Brad (CAT) on behalf of Supervisor Records Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2018 11:37 AM To: 'Fred Bullock' Subject: RE: Supervisor Cohen & Indigenous People's Day.
Mr. Bullock -
Supervisor Cohen's office has confirmed that they have no additional responsive records and they are not withholding or redacting records. Under the Sunshine Ordinance (Section 67.21(d) of the Administrative Code), the Supervisor of Records is responsible for determining whether a City department has withheld a record, or any part of a record, without a lawful basis for doing so -for determining "whether the record requested, or any part of the record requested, is public." Here, the department has not withheld or redacted any records. Therefore, there is no issue for the Supervisor of Records to address, and we consider this petition closed. Thank you.
Bradley Russi Deputy City Attorney San Francisco City Attorney's Office City Hall, Room 234 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place San Francisco, CA 94102
From: Fred Bullock Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2018 5:28 PM To: Supervisor Records Subject: Re: Supervisor Cohen & Indigenous People's Day.
Hi Brad
Thanks for your help. Supervisor Cohen's office has responded (attached). However the aide has only responded with communication from January, so I have not received a complete response. I understand that there was a change of staff but this is obviously not an excuse for not providing records prior to January, hence please do not consider the petition closed.
Thanks
Fred Bullock
From: "Russi, Brad (CAT)"
Mr. Bullock - I understand that Supervisor Cohen's office has now responded to your request and that her office is not withholding any responsive records. We therefore consider your petition closed. Thank you.
1 19th Annual SOR Report APPENDIX - Page 1 Best,
Bradley Russi Deputy City Attorney San Francisco City Attorney's Office City Hall, Room 234 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place San Francisco, CA 94102
From: Russi, Brad (CAT) On Behalf Of Supervisor Records Sent: Friday, April 06, 2018 6:17 PM To: 'Fred Bullock' < > Subject: RE: Supervisor Cohen & Indigenous People's Day.
Mr. Bullock - I write to confirm receipt of your petition below. I will look into this matter and get back to you. Thanks.
Best,
Bradley Russi Deputy City Attorney San Francisco City Attorney's Office City Hall, Room 234 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place San Francisco, CA 94102 [email protected]
From: Fred Bullock Sent: Friday, April 06, 2018 2:52 PM To: Supervisor Records Subject: Supervisor Cohen & Indigenous People's Day.
Dear Supervisor of Records
I am filing a Sunshine Appeal supported by the following information:
1. I have made multiple emailed requests to Supervisor Malia Cohen 2. I requested information about her outreach activities (people, organizations and dates) related to her Indigenous People's Day initiative. 3. My initial request was made on February 6, 2018 (see attached) 4. A second request was made on February 20, 2018 (see attached) 5. As or today (April 6th) I have not received a response to my request 6. I believe that under the San Francisco Sunshine Ordinance it is unlawful to withhold the information I requested 7. At a meeting in Supervisor Cohen's office in early February she said that she had conducted outreach to the Italian Consulate in San Francisco, this Consulate has denied this
I have attached relevant emails to Supervisor Cohen.
2 19th Annual SOR Report APPENDIX - Page 2 Please let me know if you require any further information and how you will address my complaint.
Sincerely
F. Bullock
3 19th Annual SOR Report APPENDIX - Page 3 CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO OFFICE OF THE CITY ATIORNEY
DENNIS J. HERRERA BRADLEY A. RUSSI City Attorney DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY
Direct Dial: (415) 554-4645 Email: [email protected]
June 12, 2018
Sent via email Kimo Crossman ( )
Re: Petition to Supervisor of Records
Dear Mr. Crossman:
This letter responds to your petition to the Supervisor of Records sent via email on April 16, 2018. The petition arises out of your public records request dated April 3, 2018 to the Department of Technology ("DT") for the following documents regarding the ongoing procurement process for the City's proposed fiber optic project: 1. Please post the RFQ responses submitted per SF Sunshine on the SF Fiber website - there is no draft or deliberative communication provision under SF Sunshine 2. Please post ongoing written communications with the RFQ responders on the SF Fiber website 3. Please post ongoing verbal summaries of negotiating positions as envisioned under Sunshine for 10 year or $500,000 contracts or franchises on the SF Fiber website 4. Please post ongoing any draft contract available for ten day review before policy body meeting per 67.24(a)(2) 5. Any public records requests and responses submitted by other parties related to the SF Fiber initiative from 2018 to present.
DT provided records responsive to Request #5. We have confirmed with DT that they have no documents responsive to Request #3, because the parties are not yet negotiating a contract. For the same reason, DT has no documents responsive to Request #4. DT has also confirmed that they have no documents responsive to Request #2. With regard to Request # 1, which seeks the responses to the RFQ, DT withheld documents under Administrative Code Sections 67.24(a)(l), 67.24(e)(l) and 67.24(e)(3).
City Fiber is a proposed infrastructure improvement project to construct a fiber optic network reaching all homes and businesses in the City. We understand that the City issued the RFQ for the City Fiber project in January 2018. The City is conducting the procurement process in two interconnected phases with the RFQ being the first phase. The RFQ sought responses from teams with the necessary technical and financial qualifications to complete the project. The City has now selected and announced the qualified teams, and in the second phase of the procurement the City plans to issue a request for proposals (RFP) to those teams. Ultimately, the
CITY HALL · 1 DR. CARLTON B. GOODLETT PLACE, CITY HALL ROOM 234 · SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94102-4682 RECEPTION: (415) 554-4700 · FACSIMILE: (415) 554-4699
n:\govern\as2014\0l 00505\0094547 4.doc
19th Annual SOR Report APPENDIX - Page 4 CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
Letter to Kimo Crossman Page2
City may select a proposal from one of the teams and negotiate and enter into a contract or series of contracts with the winning proposer.
Section 67.24(e)(l) of the Administrative Code provides, "[c]ontracts, contractors' bids, responses to requests for proposals and all other records of communications between the department and persons or firms seeking contracts shall be open to inspection immediately after a contract has been awarded." Concerning this provision of the Sunshine Ordinance, this Office has advised: Because responses to RFis and RFQs typically precede the issuance of an RFP, those responses typically will be considered communications between the City and persons or firms seeking contracts, and may be withheld from disclosure prior to contract award. But where the end result of an RFQ is the establishment of a list of qualified contractors to perform specialized services for a department on an ad hoc basis, the establishment of the list should be analogized to the award of a contract.
(Good Government Guide, March 2018, p. 112; available on the City Attorney's website.) Here, the contract for the City Fiber project has not yet been awarded and it will not be awarded until the conclusion of the RFP process. This procurement process does not establish a list of qualified vendors for DT to choose from on an ad hoc basis, rather the end result will be a contract or contracts with the proposer that is selected in the RFP process. Thus, the City is not yet required under Section 67.24(e)(l) to disclose the responses to the RFQ or communications with the parties who responded to the RFQ. Indeed, the disclosure of the responses to the RFQ at this time - while the procurement process is ongoing - would put the City at a disadvantage in contract negotiations that may occur in the future. The responses to the RFQ contain information regarding how each of the respondents intends to perform the underlying project. Those responses contain each respondent's unique ideas regarding performance of the project. If that information is made available to the competing teams at this time, it is likely to put the City at a disadvantage later in the process when the City is negotiating a contract after the RFP. The California Supreme Court has recognized that this is a proper basis for non-disclosure under the Public Records Act. See Michaelis, Montanari & Johnson v. Superior Court, 38 Cal.4th 1065, 1077 (2006) (citing Gov't Code§ 6255).
For the reasons stated above, DT properly withheld records in response to Request #1, and the Supervisor of Records therefore denies your Petition.
Very truly yours,
DENNIS J. HERRERA City Attorney
Bradley A. Russi Depufy City Attorney
19th Annual SOR Report APPENDIX - Page 5 Russi, Brad (CAn
From: Russi, Brad (CAT) on behalf of Supervisor Records Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2018 1:29 PM To: 'Kime Crossman' Subject: RE: Immediate Disclosure Request SF Fiber RFQ Submissions
Mr. Crossman -
We do not agree that sharing the RFP responses with the review panel constitutes a selective disclosure to a member of the public. The review panel acted as an agent of the City in evaluating the proposals. Sharing the proposals with the review panel members so that they could carry out that function cannot be equated with sharing them with the public. Indeed, as recognized in Section 6254.5 of the Government Code, the City does not waive exemptions by sharing documents with its agent. ("For purposes of this section, 'agency' includes a member, agent, officer, or employee of the agency acting within the scope of his or her membership, agency, office, or employment.") Thus, there was no selective disclosure and no waiver of the applicable exemptions. Thank you.
Best,
Bradley Russi Deputy City Attorney San Francisco City Attorney's Office City Hall, Room 234 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place San Francisco, CA 94102
From: Kimo Crossman Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2018 12:00 PM To: Supervisor Records Subject: Re: Immediate Disclosure Request SF Fiber RFQ Submissions
Dear Supervisor of Records,
You haven't addressed any of the legal points I made about selective disclosure of records.
2) Please process this *Immediate Disclosure Request* and Appeal to Supervisor of Records since we have previously requested these records, We repeat our request for all the actual SF Fiber RFQ submissions evaluated (written or oral), it's clear the city selectively disclosed them to some non city employee evaluators. The city may not selectively disclose records, once shared with non employee they must be disclosed to any other member of the public. The city can't just share records with their friends or chosen experts. This record sharing destroyed the RFP response withholding exemption under Sunshine. Even if an NDA was signed by each of these non employees that is not enough, the city must have a *formally approved and written agent relationship in their official capacity* otherwise the city could selectively disclose records to certain favorite journalists or experts under NDA and still prevent access to others.
Exemptions are waived by selective disclosure. Generally, once a particular record has been provided to a "member of the public, " access may not be denied to others, even though an exemption might have othelWise
1 19th Annual SOR Report APPENDIX - Page 6 applied (Government Code §6254.5). A member of the public is anyone other than a governmental officer, employee or agent receiving the record in his or her *official capacity*. For example, an inspection, audit or investigation report shared with the subject investigated would, in all but a handful of cases, be a public record although, if not shared with the subject, it might have been exempt from public disclosure (see 7 below) https://calaware. org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Top 1OCPRAbooklet. pdf
The CA Constitution requires: "A statute, cdurt rule, or other authority, including those in effect on the effective date of this subdivision, shall be broadly construed if it furthers the people's right of access, and narrowly construed if it limits the right of access. " https://www .calawarc.ondwp-contcnt/uploads/20 I 4/06ffop 10 Proposition59 .pdf
On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 11:48 AM Supervisor Records
Mr. Crossman -
Attached please find the determination regarding your petition. Thank you.
Best,
Bradley Russi Deputy City Attorney San Francisco City Attorney's Office City Hall, Room 234 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place San Francisco, CA 94102
From: Kimo Crossman < > Sent: Friday, June 01, 2018 12:37 PM To: SF Fiber
Supervisor of Records
We await your written legal ruling and disclosure of requested public records.
2 19th Annual SOR Report APPENDIX - Page 7 How is this coming along?
Thank you.
On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 3: 10 PM Kimo Crossman < > wrote:
Thank you
Repeating: *Immediate Disclosure Request* and Appeal to Supervisor of Records
1) We still request confirmation that no other evaluation records were withheld including recordings of the Oral interviews or notes taken by the interviewers during written or oral evaluation or sign-in sheets?
1.5 We asked for description of withheld records - no response.
1.7) What is the legal justification for the email and phone number redactions?
2) Please process this *Immediate Disclosure Request* and Appeal to Supervisor of Records since we have previously requested these records, We repeat our request for all the actual SF Fiber RFQ submissions evaluated (written or oral), it's clear the city selectively disclosed them to some non city employee evaluators. The city may not selectively disclose records, once shared with non employee they must be disclosed to any other member of the public. The city can't just share records with their friends or chosen experts. This record sharing destroyed the RFP response withholding exemption under Sunshine. Even if an NDA was signed by each of these non employees that is not enough, the city must have a *formally approved and written agent relationship in their official capacity* otherwise the city could selectively disclose records to certain favorite journalists or experts under NDA and still prevent access to others.
Exemptions are waived by selective disclosure. Generally, once a particular record has been provided to a "member of the public," access may not be denied to others, even though an exemption might have otherwise applied (Government Code §6254.5). A member of the public is anyone other than a governmental officer, employee or agent receiving the record in his or her *official capacity*. For example, an inspection, audit or investigation report shared with the subject investigated would, in all but a handful of cases, be a public
3 19th Annual SOR Report APPENDIX - Page 8 record although, if not shared with the subject, it might have been exempt from public disclosure (see 7 below) https://calaware .org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Top 1OCP RAbooklet. pdf
The CA Constitution requires:
"A statute, court rule, or other authority, including those in effect on the effective date of this subdivision, shall be broadly construed if it furthers the people's right of access, and narrowly construed if it limits the right of access. "
https://www.calawarc.onr/wp-contcnt/uploads/20 I 4/06ffop 10 Proposition59 .pdf
On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 1:19 PM SF Fiber
Hello,
Please see attached for panelists' information.
Thanks,
Stacey Lo
Office of Contract Administration
City Hall, Room 430
1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place
San Francisco, CA 94102 Phone: (415) 554-6732
4 19th Annual SOR Report APPENDIX - Page 9 Email: [email protected]
From: Kimo Crossman [mailto: ] Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2018 8:47 PM To: SF Fiber
Also we're any of the evaluators *not* city employees?
On Thu, May 10, 2018, 12:15 PM Kimo Crossman < > wrote:
Thank you were any other documents created during the evaluation like recordings, sign-in sheet, minutes, individual notes?
Please describe any documents withheld.
On Thu, May 10, 2018, 11:49 AM SF Fiber
Hello,
Please see attached for oral scoresheet summary which includes the panelists' names.
Thanks,
Stacey Lo
Office of Contract Administration
5 19th Annual SOR Report APPENDIX - Page 10 City Hall, Room 430
1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place
San Francisco, CA 94102 Phone: (415) 554-6732
Email: [email protected]
From: Kimo Crossman [mailto: ] Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2018 9:54 PM To: SF Fiber
Thank you.
As *already requested* and incorrectly delayed by the city, please immediately provide per Sunshine: Evaluator Names, written notes and comments and any other related documents including any recordings made of the oral interviews.
For any records withheld per 67.27 describe them and provide an overdue specific legal citations for withholding
(d) When a record being requested contains information, most of which is exempt from disclosure under the California Public Records Act and this Article, the custodian shall inform the requester of the nature and extent of the nonexempt information and suggest alternative sources for the information requested, if available
On Wed, May 9, 2018, 4:46 PM SF Fiber
Dear Mr./Ms. Crossman,
Attached please find the scoresheet summary, the written proposal scoresheet summary, and the oral interviews scoresheet summary for the Citywide Fiber to the Premises Network, Lit Fiber and Wi-Fi Services RFQ.
6 19th Annual SOR Report APPENDIX - Page 11 Thank you,
Stacey Lo
Office of Contract Administration
City Hall, Room 430
1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place
San Francisco, CA 94102 Phone: (415) 554-6732
Email: [email protected]
From: SF Fiber Sent: Friday, May 04, 2018 3:29 PM To: Kimo Crossman < > Cc: Records, OCA (ADM)
Dear Mr./Ms. Crossman,
We will provide a response early next week, further consultation is needed with other City departments.
Thanks,
Stacey Lo
Office of Contract Administration
City Hall, Room 430
7 19th Annual SOR Report APPENDIX - Page 12 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place
San Francisco, CA 94102 Phone: (415) 554-6732
Email: [email protected]
From: Kimo Crossman [mailto: ] Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2018 2:16 PM To: SF Fiber
Per Sunshine, evaluation records must be disclosed now including recordings of any evaluations and related documents and names of scorders must be provided.
Sunshine 67.24 (e) (1)
.... Immediately after any review or evaluation or rating of responses to a Request for Proposal ("RFP") has been completed, evaluation forms and score sheets and any other documents used by persons in the RFP ' evaluation or contractor selection process shall be available for public inspection. The names of scorers, graders or evaluators, along with their individual ratings, comments, and score sheets or comments on related documents, shall be made immediately available after the review or evaluation of a RFP has been completed.
Please provide information incrementally
On Wed, May 2, 2018 at 1:45 PM SF Fiber
Dear Mr./Ms. Crossman,
As stated in the San Francisco Administrative Code, "Contracts, contractors' bids, responses to requests for proposals and all other records of communications between the department and persons or firms seeking contracts shall be open to inspection immediately after a contract has been awarded."
The City anticipates awarding the Citywide Fiber to the Premises Network, Lit Fiber and Wi-Fi Services contract in spring of 2019, and you are encouraged to check back at that time for additional information.
8 19th Annual SOR Report APPENDIX - Page 13 Thanks,
Stacey Lo
Office of Contract Administration
City Hall, Room 430
1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place
San Francisco, CA 94102 Phone: (415) 554-6732
Email: [email protected]
l '
i I I '
'I I
From: Kimo Crossman [mailto: ] Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2018 3:28 PM To: SF Fiber
Thank you, would you also post online all the RFQ responses as well as all the evaluation and rating documents/recordings
On Tue, May 1, 2018 at 2:37 PM SF Fiber
Dear Mr./Ms. Crossman,
Please see attached for the Notice of the Pre-Qualified Bidders for the RFQ.
As stated in the San Francisco Administrative Code, "Contracts, contractors' bids, responses to requests for proposals and all other records of communications between the department and persons or firms seeking contracts shall be open to inspection immediately after a contract has been awarded."
9 19th Annual SOR Report APPENDIX - Page 14 The City anticipates awarding the Citywide Fiber to the Premises Network, Lit Fiber and Wi-Fi Services contract in spring of 2019, and you are encouraged to check back at that time for additional information.
Thanks,
Stacey Lo
Office of Contract Administration
City Hall, Room 430
1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place
San Francisco, CA 94102 Phone: (415) 554-6732
Email: [email protected]
From: Kimo Crossman [mailto: ] . Sent: Monday, April 30, 2018 4:06 PM • j · · · ' To: SF Fiber
' ' ;
Immediate Disclosure Request
For the SF Fiber RFQ please post notice of
Issue Notice of Qualified Bidders:
April 30, 2018
10 19th Annual SOR Report APPENDIX - Page 15 Also please post all public records generated as part of the evaluation process which you have indicated you are treating as an RFP process. Records include any recordings and are not limited to:
Sunshine 67.24 (e) (1)
Immediately after any review or evaluation or rating of responses to a Request for Proposal ("RFP") has been completed, evaluation forms and score sheets and any other documents used by persons in the RFP evaluation or contractor selection process shall be available for public inspection. The names of scorers, graders or evaluators, along with their individual ratings, comments, and score sheets or comments on related documents, shall be made immediately available after the review or evaluation of a RFP has been completed.
Please provide information incrementally
11 19th Annual SOR Report APPENDIX - Page 16 Russi, Brad (CAn
From: Guzman, Andrea (CAT) on behalf of CityAttorney Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2018 8:38 AM To: Russi, Brad (CAT) Subject: FW: Appeal to Supervisor of Records ... : Please reopen Re: Your San Francisco public records request 18-902 has been closed.
Best,
Andrea Guzman Deputy Press Secretary
OFFICE OF CITY ATTORNEY DENNIS HERRERA San Francisco City Hall, Room 234 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place San Francisco, California 94102-4682 [email protected] (415) 554-4653 Direct (415) 554-4700 Reception (415) 554-6770 TTY
Subscribe to news and updates from the S.F. City Attorney's Office at http://www.sfcityattorney.org
From: Kimo Crossman Sent: Monday, April 16, 2018 7:11 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Appeal to Supervisor of Records ... : Please reopen Re: Your San Francisco public records request 18-902 has been closed.
Dear SF City Attorney
Please forward this Appeal to your current Supervisor of Records
Thank you
Kimo Crossman
To:
1 19th Annual SOR Report APPENDIX - Page 17 Respectfully the Sunshine provisions cited apply to a RFP this matter is a RFQ. These documents including drafts are public record available for disclosure now. Please provide them. There is also no draft exemption under SF sunshine.
On Apr 12, 20183:13 PM, "San Francisco Public Records"
-- Write ABOVE THIS LINE to post a message that will be sent to staff. --
San Francisco Public Records
Record request #18-902 has been closed. The closure reason supplied was:
Hello Mr. Crossman,
We have conducted a diligent search for records responsive to your request. We have located responsive records but are withholding some of them because they are exempt from disclosure.
The evaluation period is not yet concluded, the records you've requested:
• RFQ responses • ongoing communication with respondents • negotiating positions, and • draft contracts
are exempt from public disclosure as permitted by Admin Code 67.24(a)(1 ), 67.24(e)(1) and 67.24(e)(3) which covers preliminary drafts, memoranda, notes and other records relating to RFPs. Disclosing these records at this time will impair the integrity of the evaluation and contracting process.
2 19th Annual SOR Report APPENDIX - Page 18 ' ! : This information will become a matter of public record, ;' I ; when the evaluation period concludes on April 30, 2018, as stated on the project website tech.sfgov.org/fiber. I I : Please find for your review other records requests submitted by other parties regarding the SF Fiber initiative from 2018 to present at on our records request portal, Next Request. I' i As a courtesy, the Office of Contract Administration 11 published a shortlist of respondent teams selected for j I oral inteNiews earlier this week. This list is located in the i I announcements section of the SF Supplier Portal. i I This concludes your public records request. 1 l l I Best, ! I 1 Lauren Jones
Communications Manager
Too many emails? Change your email settings here
Trouble with the request button? Copy the URL below into your web browser:
http://sanfrancisco.nextreguest.com/reguests/18-902
Questions about your request? Reply to this email or sign in to contact staff at San
Francisco.
Technical support: See our help page
3 19th Annual SOR Report APPENDIX - Page 19 NextRequest
D
4 19th Annual SOR Report APPENDIX - Page 20 Russi, Brad (CAn
From: Russi, Brad (CAT) on behalf of SupeNisor Records Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2018 6:00 PM To: ' ' Subject: RE: FW: 911 Audio CD
Ms. Jennings -
DEM has indicated that they did not withhold or redact any portion of the recording in response to your request. Under the Sunshine Ordinance (Section 67.2l(d) of the Administrative Code}, the Supervisor of Records is responsible for determining whether a City department has withheld a record, or any part of a record, without a lawful basis for doing so -for determining 11whether the record requested, or any part of the record requested, is public." Here, the department has not withheld or redacted any records. Therefore, there is no issue for the Supervisor of Records to address, and we consider this petition closed. Thank you.
Bradley Russi Deputy City Attorney San Francisco City Attorney's Office City Hall, Room 234 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place San Francisco, CA 94102
From: Simone Jennings Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2018 11:10 AM To: Supervisor Records Subject: Re: FW: 911 Audio CD
An edited version.
On Tue, Jun 5, 2018, 11:06 AM Supervisor Records
Ms. Jennings -
Did you receive the records that you requested from DEM?
Bradley Russi Deputy City Attorney San Francisco City Attorney's Office City Hall, Room 234 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place San Francisco, CA 94102
1 19th Annual SOR Report APPENDIX - Page 21 From: Simone Jennings < > Sent: Friday, June 01, 2018 7:32 PM To: CityAttorney
Ms Guzman,
I am going to file a Sunshine Complaint (I hope correct terminology) & per section XV of the below document. I am to also petition the Supervisor of Records in the City Attorney's Office as well as the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force. I did find this document on the DEM's website, but it was created in 2005 & last updated in 2008, so things may have changed a little.
Just to recap
4/12 faxed 1st Public Records Request for 911 Audio form Aug 2017 911 call made from cell phone
4/12 DEM generated a written CAD report of the 911 call, but not the audio of the call that I had specifically requested in my initial Public Records Request. A cover letter was included stating, I would need to resubmit another request if I STILL required the 911 audio. Yeap, that's what I asked for, not a single sheet synopsis of my Aug17 911 call.
***I would like this response specifically reviewed. As I never asked for a CAD printout. All I wanted was the 911 audio CD & to get a printout in the mail w/ a snarky cover letter letting me this should suffice & I know it isn't want you wanted, but go ahead & send in another Public Records Request if you still want what you requested in the first place**** its the lack of "professionalism" that really irks me. Up until, that moment, it was a request from a government agency/dept & to have such a personal respone especially from the Custodian of Records Dept is super scary to me. You are supposed to be the true custodian of records, this stuff sends . people to jail for life & it just is very alarming to me to behavior I got in response to my request.. I was honest to God praying "the word on street" that the kid who laid on the horn, stopped, sat there in his car behind me, at the intersection of 4th & Bryant while I was sitting on a rented SCOOT before deciding to step on the gas & ram straight directly into the back of me ... that his Mom is a cop. I was really hoping it was bullshit, but she confirmed to me when she & a couple of her fellow officers were standing outside Payless Shoe Source on Market & starts going on about me antagonizing her son & that's why cause I wouldn't stop antagonizing her son - I had not spoken a word of the incident to anyone outside the dispatcher & any legal obligation I had to SCOOT to debrief them of incident & pay $250 or $280 in repairs to rear end of the scooter. Light had been red the whole time, the little green walk man had changed, but that light only pertains to freeway off ramp traffic going, not the Bryant heading East, we would have been next in the rotation. So it's super messy now & I want 911 from a cell phone fixed. I have called 3 or 4 times in my life, 1st time was in 1st or 2nd grade & that officers came to my house 3 times that day - the pure agony of waiting for my Mother & him to connect was hell enough. I was a runaway, so I can handle much more than most, but to be told the police can't get in the building or sorry tough shit nobody is responding - the only 2 times I have called for myself was a super blow. This is the system that was designed to keep me & everyone self. Just because of stupid interpersonal
2 19th Annual SOR Report APPENDIX - Page 22 baby squabbling - that someone in a situation like being a 911 dispatcher should have well grown out of by now\
City policy (word on street's is) 911 calls made from a cell phone in SF are only responded to if an injury is involved. She told me to go to police station, any station, to file a hit & run report cause they types of calls never end in a conviction & she would broadcast the vehicle details to officers in area (which she said were none) according to CAD printout - we spent 3-5 minutes on the phone together. Too long in my opinion to not warrant the car parked up the block at the homeless shelter to come & do a quick checkin before their next ....
4/23 - Mailed the 2nd request for 911 Audio along with $35 check (cleared my bank on 5/10)
511 - Called & left voicemail for status update
5/1 - Ron Davies responded, let me know it hadn't come in mail yet & he would call me back later with an additional information. Later that day, he left me a voicemail saying it had arrived & was in the stack for : tomorrow 5/2 & it would be sent out once the audio CD was PRODUCED. I figured a little editing as she did kind of say some stupid shit to me, but to have the loop back of the same bit of voice track along with the time & length not matching or tying out to the written CAD report I had gotten weeks earlier was just annoying, especially at this point in the game.
519 or 5/ 10 - Called again & left voicemail to get status update
5110 - Women returned my call to let me know it was done & I could come in & pickup when ever I wanted. Instead, I asked her to just drop it in the mail cause I have a mouth & someone who would behave like that in the position they are in, probably wouldn't have behaved in a manner I would expect from a member of law enforcement, bufcome to find out the dispatchers are not law enforcement & they really need to clean it up in there cause those photos that have been in the newspaper recently with their personal belongings laying all over workstations is unnerving, but at this point not surprising.
5/10 - Postmark Date on the envelope hand addressed to me using a beautiful calligraphy pen - yet another cringe - wow you guys can send people away for life, your word & documents are treated as gospel & truth & you behave like that
A month for a 911 audio CD is ridiculous. Especially with the quick turnaround time on the 1st go around.
I am not interested in dragging this through the media, but at this point. I am more than ready to. I have had the FCC, State & Federal Attorney General push me & my NEVER HAD ANYTHING TO DO WITH POLICE issue, so I will not be filing any complaints against them. Which is fine cause I am not going anywhere & at this point after almost a decade of being stalked, losing everything cause they knew the police couldn't get in my old apt building in Oakland, if they responded at all. I am all in & I don't have a thing in my closet I am 3 19th Annual SOR Report APPENDIX - Page 23 ashamed of or scared of coming out. I was a GL Accountant for years, Controller, I now transpose my numbers due to a head injury I suffered as a result of the constant stalking & harassment - I'm sorry let me PC that up "bullying." that is the correct term people can swallow.
I want the breakdown in 911 from a cell phone fixed. What I went thru isn't chargeable, I don't even know who the people are, but I do know it has occurred in 7 different locations I have lived in in the last 9 years & it has been like a relay race baton pass between the different little groups & it got really bad when they were home from school during spring break & summer. It was awful, but sinking my teeth into this will bring me solace.
Btw, what happened to all the gold on the dome of City Hall..It's gone - Willie's Legacy destroyed by the heat from lighting up City Hall at night. The colors don't even match half the time & we (as a city & its people) are using solar generated energy. Public Works should really get up there & do something about it: faux finish or Bettina - heat resistant this time
Honestly, I am not looking to go there & if I can get this addressed quietly, I will, but judging by the brush offs & responses I have gotten from the government agencies I have requested assistance from so far, it doesn't look like anyone is interested.
There is a major breakdown between the 911 cell phone dispatcher & xxxxxxxxxxxxx the bit between the FD & PD dispatcher - that is my issue the bit in between NO ONE WANTS TO ADDRESS - police were never involved\
BTW I don't care about crime statistics - it's RESPONSE TIME - how long & if the mailmen, EMTs & fireman can get in a building - I'm sure the police can to. I don't care it's called a common areal But this place is scary, every store has a uniformed security guard WHY - they do no call the police, they harass the wrong people (its the Asian techie girls, I grew up in Walnut Creek I know) & then are now overreactive with pepper spray & CEDs cause people are not addressed & interacted with in a professional manner & the police are not involved ever.
I was in Target & one of the girl security guards had made this guy dump everything out in his bag just before the escalators going downstairs & he was crying he was so humiliated. Not even an apology - you see that once or twice in a store you frequent & it just gets pitiful cause I really like her when she 1st started & now she thinks she is GI Security Guard & she doesn't know how to handle herself because she is obviously scared. Also, pepper spray- if people are licensed to carry & use then they need to have the means to counteract on them as well - just like with Mexcian Food it's milk or sour cream over the eyes, Yet another wonderfull afternoon in Targets Starbucks. It's a little dangerous down here & it has to do more with the Security Guards being jumpy, but it has improved dramatically over the last 5mos - year. 4 19th Annual SOR Report APPENDIX - Page 24 You are aware the US Mint Police were patrolling the Safeway Parking Lot because I am only assuming by the way in which the outside security guard would come running in & starting rubbing his exposed skin with hand sanitizer that he had been physical with a vagrant. I saw him drop some girl one night for no reason, but that seems to have cleared up, but it still goes on with ...... I am sure you have heard about the 9pm coffee break at the Hotel Nikko starbucks & the yellings of a specific female SFPD officer. Well, UBER is more important that why MASONIC is the dividing line for most SF families.
https ://sfdem.org/ftp/uploadedfiles/DEM/911 /ReleaseotPu blicRecordsPoliciesProcedures. pdf
Thanks,
Simone
WRITE ME OFF AS YOU WISH, but I'm sure I'll end backup in your Dept, right Andrea? I was in right dept, just wrong job title when I complained about DEM not responding to my initial request in what I thougth was a timely matter. Mail takes about 2 weeks. I can deal with that, but by the 2nd & 3rd time, it's come on & at this point - please don't insult my way or my former GL Accountant neurosis. I'm all in, fully vested due to snarky personal responses by DEM & Andrea.
5 19th Annual SOR Report APPENDIX - Page 25 On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 8:31 AM, CityAttomey
Ms. Jennings,
You have reached the San Francisco City Attorney's Office. Please contact the Department of Emergency Services directly, who provided the response to your request. You can also find their contact information here http://sfdem.org/connect
Best,
Andrea Guzman Responding for [email protected]
OFFICE OF CITY ATTORNEY DENNIS HERRERA
San Francisco City Hall, Room 234 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place San Francisco, California 94102-4682 (415) 554-4700 Reception
Subscribe to news and updates from the S.F. City Attorney's Office at http://www.sfcityattorney.org
From: Simone Jennings < > Sent: Sunday, April 29, 2018 3:49 PM To: Guzman, Andrea (CAT)
Hi,
I just wanted to follow up in regards to the resubmital of my request for the audio from my 911 call placed on 8/18/2017@ 12:37:35
6 19th Annual SOR Report APPENDIX - Page 26 I did receive an official document printed on heat sensitive paper, that is stamped DO NOT DUPLICATE, titled: EVENT HISTORY DETAIL: Call 172301915
& In cover the letter I was told is I still required the audio to resubmit request w/ payment. Initially, I had planned to pay for CD when I collected, but I assume that has something to do with"not providing counter services."
Regardless, it was remailed on 23rd, check has yet to clear bank & my Mother & Sister are here this week. They will be leaving on Sunday & I was hoping to play it for them by then.
I've included a copy of the cover letter, initially request & resubmittal.
Thanks,
Simone
On Fri, Mar 30, 2018, 11 :09 AM CityAttorney
Ms. Jennings,
The Department of Emergency Services may be able to better assist you. You can find their contact information here http://sfdem.org/connect
Best,
Andrea Guzman Responding for [email protected]
OFFICE OF CITY ATTORNEY DENNIS HERRERA
7 19th Annual SOR Report APPENDIX - Page 27 San Francisco City Hall, Room 234 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place San Francisco, California 94102-4682
(415) 554-4653 Direct (415) 554-4700 Reception
(415) 554-6770 TTY
Subscribe to news and updates from the S.F. City Attorney's Office at http://www.sfcityattorney.org
From: Simone Jennings < > Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2018 5:30 PM To: CityAttorney
Hi,
This is Simone Jennings again & my two previous emails to the City Attorney's office have gone ignored "officially," but not so by someone in your dept.
I get a lot of side chatter,. regardless. I am a courier & ride around town delivering food on a red scooter & I walk into restaurants & into both commercial & residential buildings wearing a helmet with a large lightning bolt on it. I do that to destingious myself from "belonging" in an an elevator or hallway & also ... I have noticed that people get very upset over couriers "skipping in line" & for whatever reason the helmet nips a lot of that in the bud. People in general enjoy being difficult & for whatever reason spend more time plotting on how to not do something or do it half ass than just handling it head on when it comes straight at you. Maybe it's the way we are raised, but honestly these kids these days are kinda creepy with the amount of bullying that has been tolerated.
So, now the reason for the email. I was scooting up Franklin & was at the Hayes intersection & these two girls. Maybe in there early 20s are walking thru the intersecrtion & as soon as I can see there backs the one wearing a dark grey Public Works hoodie says something about an email that I sent to the City Attorney. Even more disturbing is that Sat (3/24) a young women was walking up Mason with her parents (I assume) & says to me as I walk by that we locked down UBER.
8 19th Annual SOR Report APPENDIX - Page 28 Now, seriously, the 911 from a cell phone not working is a major major major issue for me & something I am willing to ride out publically on. I don't appreciate all this side chatter, all the harrassment from SFPD & SFFD (the trucks stopped a longtime ago & it seemed to only be a few people within the dept & my guess drinking buddies)
So, I was rear ended at a red light on 8/18 @ 12:36pm according to the email I got from SCOOT asking if I was OK cause the SCOOT had tipped. No, I'm still not OK & it has gotten so bad, that I was brought back to the age of 4 or 5 (1983-1984) when my Dad was workign for AerLingus (we are irish & didn't emigrate til 1985) & he was part of the team that was using a computer language called TPF to unify the global airtransportation network. We were in Kuwait & it felt like we were flying everyday to FRANKFURT@ one point the only way out of that part of the world was thru KUWAIT & the majority fo the UN delegation work was being done in First Class or the Airport Lounges in the newly verging system. There were certain families that were "living" in airport lounges as their domiciles were no longer of their peoples. I had curly hair & the same type of rignlet that would be of a young Arab male & due to sun & always ending up on the male side of EVERYTHING especially the emutte & ostrich races. It became easier to dress me in long sleeved & trousered clothing.
When we first arrive we were over by the water or TV towers - the tall white spikes with beautiful blue glubs (Im sure name is derived from that Indian dessert with similar shaped balls) & one of the sheiks was there with his family & took my sister & covererd her with all these coins & gold & did a little photo opp with his family. His family would have included his multitude of wives - I think it was the honeymoon & they start off with - actually the TV progrma The Bachelor or Bachelorette where one gets voted off each week would be most akin in our culture.
The reason this happened is we left Ireland for Kuwait at the earliest moment possible & that was when my sister turned 9 weeks old. They had been waiting to start this global communication system that would allow you to reach any destination within the world with 3 transfers or less. There was one point, that would be 4 transfers as I would fly himself direct & wasn't interested in any dealing outside his immediate shores. So, this was a HUGE undertaking & remember computers only started in the 60s & my Dad was one of the forefronts of this technology. I remember my Grandad getting one of the 1st laptops. Everything in my life was DOS when I was young & I couldn't even tell you anything beyond C:/ I have no interest in technology or any of this other crap society has deemed important. I am a General Ledger Accountant by trade. That's how my head works & unfortunatly the events that happened to me in Okland (which this SFPD officer who keeps saying she raided me - when she absolutely 100% did not even have jurisdiction & thinks it is appropriate almost a decade later to call me out about it while walking a block down from O'Farrell & a block away from Powell st & then to pantomine Nortre Dame's Fighting Irish while on crowd control duty outside the Bill Graham Civic Auditorium one evening as I was scooting down Polk (very recent) or to lunge @ me - she has a visceral reaction everytime she sees me & it is very very disturbing - that not only is she a uniformed officer behaving like this - she makes the whole Tenderloin dept look like a joke - cause the 9pm crew is all there with her having their coffee break outside the Starbucks @ O'Farrell & Cyril Magnin directly across from The Irish Bar & a block up from the Starbucks on Powell & O'Farrell. I also get side chatter from the female officers - they all look the same to me it's either hispanic or that bottle blond look - I couldn't be bothered taking time to walk up & get badge #s or even care enough to do so. The problem is the dept as a whole behaves unprofessionally - anytime one acts like this/they all do & there are so few on patrol these days & I'm a courier - it seems like I see the same ones everyday - you don't even see the motorcycle or dirtbikes anymore, really) Again, I was a runaway in the mid to late 90s & you could barely walk down 9 19th Annual SOR Report APPENDIX - Page 29 Haight without seeing 2 or 3 black & whites. Now, we were annoying as fuck - all those little dirty drug addicted hippie runaway kids with the old drunk vietname vets hanging out & fighting by shopping carts & I never once say any of those officers behave like this women (who likes to yell out she raide me 8 years ago in public spaces which is entirely untrue) & a few of what I am assuming are "straight" female officers. It is very strange to have people make comments about you & stir things up when you have absolutely no record nor has anyone in the dept had dealings with you in the last 20 years outside of being pulled over on Valencia & being informed on how they would like you start passing stuck @ redlight traffic: on the left, using indicator, no more that 5mph. That's my sole contact with SFPD in the last 20 years.
I would have loved for them to have been made aware of my phone call to 911 that I made on 8/18 @ roughly 12:36pm when the guy who was direclty behind me decided to rev it & gun it @ the intersection of 4th & bryant. He had laid on horn, the light was still red. & funny thing is the lane beside me was open when he decided to stop behind me. & he jsut floored it while I was at a complete stand still in front of him on scoot. I made the mistake of punching in 911 directly into my cellphone instead of scrolling thru my contacts to look for the local # for the poilce that I DONT have in my contacts./ I wouldn't even know the local or direct dial # for the police dept. If that isn't the stupidest work around I have ever heard in my life. I don't know what is. I had this happen to me in Oakland as well. 3 911 calls, which on 3rd one I asked the CHP dispatcher if they could send someone & they couldn't - She did however get the Seargant to contact me direclty & just like the Office with Emergency Services the ALWAYS answered the call.
So just to be 100% clear, my issues is with behavior & the lack of interest. My guess is it all has to do with that newspaper article about the 2,000 calls made to 911 about PG&E turning out the lgihts. Were all these made from a landline or go thru the Office of Emergency Services? My understanding is my call to 911 from a cell phone was not further relayed on & when I looked at the SF DATA set trying to find my 911 call made on 8/18. I looked at both SFPD & SFFD data cause I figured that would be logged as SFPD data or activity & it was very disturbing to see SFPD got 24 calls to SFFD 1000s. It's BROKEN, WAY BROKEN
My sister is in PR & is the Managing Director for Hanover Communications Ireland. I will not be doing anything outside of ordering the audio from my 911 call on 8/18 made just after 12:36pm. It will cost me $35 for the CD & I'm a little concerned (being a GL Accountant by trade) I transpose my #s now due to head trauma that occured just months before moving back to SF. My understanding is that officer stayed in contact with my old landlord & I am sure she was notified about all the issues in that building due to a group of Russian Hill kids trying to take it over. Now, that's all very messy.
But, 911 not wokring, isn't & if my other issues get addressed quietly or eve~n not as a result of me going to media. I am fine with that, I have no skeletons in my closet outside of my sister being the Managing Director of the Irish division of a global PR Firm. She & my mother will be here in May & at that time as a "professional courtesy" I will mention it to her & hopefully have the audio CD of the 911 call that I was unable to locate within the currently available SFFD & SFPD data sets made available to the public at https://data.sfgov.org
10 19th Annual SOR Report APPENDIX - Page 30 I'll send direct links to the Data Sets under seperate cover.
Thanks,
Simone Jennings
11 19th Annual SOR Report APPENDIX - Page 31 Russi, Brad (CAn
From: Russi, Brad (CA n on behalf of Supervisor Records Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2018 4:14 PM To: ' ' Subject: RE: Petition to the Supervisor of Records
Ms. Treboux -
Thank you for clarifying the nature of your petition. My understanding is that the Arts Commission already produced to you the document that Rebekah Krell had at the Task Force meeting, and that it has not created the index that you have inquired about below. The Supervisor of Records only has jurisdiction to hear petitions where a department has allegedly improperly withheld or redacted a record. Here, the Arts Commission has produced the only record it has. As a result, it is outside the scope of review of the Supervisor of Records. Thank you.
Best,
Bradley Russi Deputy City Attorney San Francisco City Attorney's Office City Hall, Room 234 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place San Francisco, CA 9410.2
From: Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2018 9:33 AM To: Supervisor Records Subject: Re: Petition to the Supervisor of Records
DCA Russi:
It is not a matter of sifting though SOFT documents. You go to the SFBOS web site and type in the file number at the top right hand side.
SOTF file 17028 began as an unsolicited email I recieved from Kate Patterson. I asked for documents relating to, "tone of emails; abusive emails and other related documents" via an email IDR. Patterson believed she, "did not need to produce the documents".
At several subsequent hearings, the last at the full SOFT-Rebekah Krell came with a handwritten note. She did not provide the SOFT administrator with a copy and it as of today was never entered into any packet.
The minutes of that SOFT hearing at a request that the SFAC produce all documents: unredacted; redacted and related documents pertaining to an INDEX OF RECORDS.
SOTF member Josh Wolfe asked how a handwritten account of, "complaints made by members of the public with no date and time" had to do with abusive emails to SFAC staff.
This complaint was filed in 2017 and has been on-going.
I would like to see the INDEX OF RECORDS and all written documents pertaining to the INDEX OF RECORDS.
1 19th Annual SOR Report APPENDIX - Page 32 Ann Treboux
-----Original Message----- From: Supervisor Records
Ms. Treboux - I will not sift through the SOTF records to find what you're talking about. Thank you.
Bradley Russi Deputy City Attorney San Francisco City Attorney's Office City Hall, Room 234 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place San Francisco, CA 94102
-----Original Message----- From: Ann < > Sent: Monday, August 20, 2018 1:50 PM To: Supervisor Records
Get with SOFT. It is a matter of public record.
Ann
>On Aug 20, 2018, at 1:35 PM, Supervisor Records
2 19th Annual SOR Report APPENDIX - Page 33 >Ann >
3 19th Annual SOR Report APPENDIX - Page 34 CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
DENNIS J. HERRERA BRADLEY A. RUSSI City Attorney DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY
Direct Dial: (415) 554-4645 Email: brad [email protected]
September 14, 2018 Sent via email Kevin Williams ( )
Re: Petition to Supervisor of Records
Dear Mr. Williams:
This letter responds to your petition to the Supervisor of Records sent via email on August 24, 2018. You state in the petition that "the dispute herein submitted for formal review on appeal was heard by the Full Sunshine Taskforce [sic] on August 1, 2018." We have reviewed File No. 18022 heard by the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force ("SOTF") on August 1, 2018, involving a complaint you filed. That matter concerns your request for an advisory opinion from the SOTF under Section 12L.5(b) of the Administrative Code regarding records requests you made to the Bayview Opera House under Administrative Code Chapter 12L. The Bayview Opera House is a non-profit agency separate from the City. Chapter 12L applies certain open records requirements to non-profits that receive over $250,000 in City funding over the course of a year.
As an initial matter, you appear to desire that the Supervisor of Records review your petition as an appeal from the SOTF's decision on File No. 18022. The Supervisor of Records has no authority to review decisions of the SOTF. The Supervisor of Records may independently review the same matter under review by the SOTF if the matter is otherwise within the purview of Supervisor of Records jurisdiction. But a decision made by the SOTF is not appealable to the Supervisor of Records. Thus, we have no authority to determine an appeal of the SOTF's decision in File No. 18022.
Nonetheless, we have reviewed your petition and File No. 18022 to assess whether a City department withheld records in response to your request, and, if so, whether the records were properly withheld.
With regard to any request you made to the Bayview Opera House - which, as stated above, is not a City department - we have determined that we do not have jurisdiction to address your concerns. The Supervisor of Records has no jurisdiction to review a non-profit agency's compliance with Chapter 12L of the Administrative Code. The means for obtaining review of such a response are contained in Administrative Code Section 12L.5(b). The Supervisor of Records only has power to review responses by City departments to public records requests made under the Sunshine Ordinance (Chapter 67 of the Administrative Code). To the extent your petition seeks review of actions taken by the Bayview Opera House, we have no authority to review such actions.
Indeed, the records of the Bayview Opera House are not "public records" under the Public Records Act, because the Bayview Opera House is not a "local agency" under Section
CITY HALL · 1 DR. CARLTON B. GOODLEIT PLACE, CITY HALL ROOM 234 · SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94102-4682 RECEPTION: (415) 554-4700 ·FACSIMILE: (415) 554-4699
n:\govern\as2014\0100505\00945474.doc
19th Annual SOR Report APPENDIX - Page 35 CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO OFFICE OF THE CITY ATIORNEY
Letter to Kevin Williams Page2 September 14, 2018
6252(a) of the Government Code. You appear to contend that the Bayview Opera House meets the definition of a "local agency" as a ~egislative body of a local agency under Section 54952(c) of the Government Code. Because the Bayview Opera House was not created by the Board of Supervisors to exercise authority lawfully delegated by the Board of Supervisors (Gov't Code § 54952(c)(l)(A)), and there is no member of the Bayview Opera House governing body who was appointed by and is a member of the Board of Supervisors (Gov't Code§ 54952(c)(l)(B)), it is not the type of non-profit corporation that could constitute a local agency under Section 6252(a).
Regarding your request(s) to the Arts Commission, your petition does not specify the request at issue or the Arts Commission's response. You appear to contend that the Arts Commission may not have produced all responsive records, because you have not received records concerning a portion of funds spent on renovating the Bayview Opera House. We have contacted the Arts Commission about your requests. The Arts Commission has confirmed that they conducted a thorough search for records on this issue and that they produced all responsive records and withheld nothing. Under Section 67.2l(d) of the Administrative Code, Supervisor of Records jurisdiction is very limited. The Supervisor of Records is responsible for determining whether a City department has withheld a record, or any part of a record, without a lawful basis for doing so - for determining "whether the record requested, or any part of the record requested, is public." Here, the department has not withheld or redacted any records. Because the Arts Commission has not withheld records, there is no issue for the Supervisor of Records to address.
For the reasons stated above, we consider your petition closed.
Very truly yours,
DENNIS J. HERRERA City Attorney
Bradley~ A. Russi Deputy City Attorney
19th Annual SOR Report APPENDIX - Page 36 San Francisco City Attorney E-mail Filing Address: [email protected]
Case No. ----
IN THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO OFFICE OF THE CITY ATORNEY FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
KEVIN B. WILLIAMS Petitioner/Appellant
v.
San Francisco Arts Commission; and Bayview Opera House Ruth Williams Memorial Theater Respondent/Appellee
Appeal from the San Francisco Sunshine Taskforce File No. File No. 18022:
PETITION TO THE SUPERVISIOR OF RECORDS
KEVIN B. WILLIAMS (E-mail) (Mobile)
Petitioner/Appellant
19th Annual SOR Report APPENDIX - Page 37 TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION ...... 5
II. SINGLE QUESTION FOR REVIEW ON APPEAL ...... 7
III. STATEMENT OF FACTS ...... 7
A. The Sunshine Taskforce Failed to Consider Williams' Sunshine Ordinance Complaint Included San Francisco Administrative Code section 67.24 ...... 7
B. Arts Commission Executive Director Tom DeCaigny Ordered Ockel Not to Produce Public Records without Consequences.9
IV. LEGAL DISCUSSION ...... 11
A. The City Attorney Issued an Opinion In the Form of An At Issue Memorandum Representing Respondents Before the August 1, 2018 Sunshine Taskforce Hearing Was Ever Held ...... 11
B. The City Attorney's Office Is Complicit in Protecting Nefarious Resistance to Compliance with the Sunshine Ordinance by its Indirect Representation of Respondents Arts Commission and Bayview Opera House ...... 13
C. Board of Supervisor Malia Cohen Exerts Influence and Control Directly and Indirectly with Family Members Serving over the Board of Directors duly constituting her role as an Ex-officio Member of the BVOH ...... 14
V. PUBLIC RECORDS ACT ...... 16
A. Nonprofits are considered a Public Body under the Freedom of Information Act as follows: ...... 17
B. The Taskforce Ignored Respondent Arts Commission's Top Brass and Upper Management 10-year Record of Repeated Violations of the Sunshine Ordinance supported by Voluminous Anecdotal Testimony and Statistical Evidence of Material Acts of Dishonesty and Moral Turpitude ...... 17
1 19th Annual SOR Report APPENDIX - Page 38 C. Taskforce Failure to Lodge Evidence of Record Presented at Hearing ...... 18
VI. DEMAND FOR PRESERVATION OF EVIDENCE: ...... 19
VII. CONCLUSION ...... 19
2 19th Annual SOR Report APPENDIX - Page 39 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
CASES
California State University, Fresno Assn., Inc. v. Superior Court (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 810, 829 ...... 14
Epstein v. Hollywood Entertainment Dist. II Bus. Improvement Dist., supra, 87 Cal.App.4th at p. 870, citing International Longshoremen' s & Warehousemen's Union v. Los Angeles Export Terminal, Inc., supra, 69 Cal.App.4th at p. 295 ...... 14
International Longshoremen's & Warehousemen's Union v. Los Angeles Export Terminal, Inc., supra, 69 Cal.App.4th at p. 297 ...... 14 STATUTES
502( c) 3 Public Benefit Corporation ...... 7
Public Records Act and the Brown Act .... :...... 14 OTHER AUTHORITIES
85 Ops. Cal. Atty. Gen. 55 (2002) ...... 14
Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) ...... 15 CODE
47 U.S.C. §§ 521, 531 ...... 14
54952, subdivision(c) ...... 15
Administrative Code Section 12L.3(e) ...... 11
Administrative Code Section 12L.5(b) ...... 11
Gov. Code 6253 et seq ...... 10
Government Code § 6252, subd. (d) ...... 15
Government Code section 53066 ...... 14
Government Code section 54952, subdivision (c)(l)(A) ...... 13
3 19th Annual SOR Report APPENDIX - Page 40 Government Code section 6252(b) as amended by AB 2937, Stats. 2002, Ch. 1073 ...... 14
S.F. Administrative Code§§ 67.20(c) and 67.21(d) ...... 5
San Francisco Administrative Code section 12L ...... 7
San Francisco Administrative Code section 67 .24 ...... 6
San Francisco Administrative Code section 67 .24, ...... 6
San Francisco Administrative Code section 67.3(d) ...... 10, 12
Section 67.3(d) of the Sunshine Ordinance ...... 11 sections 67(d)(4)(5) and (7) ...... 12 subdivisions (c) and (d) of Section 54952 ...... 15
Sunshine Ordinance Section 67.20(i) ...... 12
Sunshine Ordinance Section 67 .34 ...... 10
4 19th Annual SOR Report APPENDIX - Page 41 Petition to the Supervisor of Records I. INTRODUCTION In relevant part, San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera has stated the principles of "good government" require, "As public officials, we have no higher obligation than to conduct the functions of San Francisco government in a manner that is honest, open to scrutiny and responsive to the people we serve". In addition, as chief law enforcement officer of this city, he has publically proclaimed, "Remember: a public office is a public trust. As public officials for the City and County of San Francisco, it is our highest responsibility to conduct the functions of government in a way that is honest, open, and responsive to the citizens we serve. I am proud to offer my office's unwavering commitment to assist in that endeavor. And I hope you find this Good Government Guide helps toward that end." City Attorney Herrera did not stop there in his stated commitment to public access to government records, he also said the following: "City law requires competitive bidding on most contracts to protect against fraud, corruption, and favoritism as well as to ensure that honest bidders participate in the contracting process. See, e.g., Admin. Code § 21.1. City officers and employees must follow these processes when awarding any City contract . . . While public City Attorney opinion and other city resources explain these laws in greater detail, we mention them here to stress the importance of ensuring fair processes in government contracting decisions. Here, the Arts Commission maintains it has no knowledge about $3.1 million dollars of taxpayer dollars that is missing and is alleged to have been sp~nt on the 2016 $5.6 million dollar historic renovation of the Bayview Opera House Ruth Williams Memorial Theater it legally owns and controls.
5 19th Annual SOR Report APPENDIX - Page 42 The depth of the underlying dishonesty is an opaque absurdity, which defies rudimentary logic. The San Francisco Sunshine Ordinance designates the City Attorney as the "Supervisor of Records" for purposes of adjudicating petitions by requesters to determine whether records withheld by San Francisco city agencies, officials or employees in response to Sunshine requests are public. (S.F. Administrative Code§§ 67.20(c) and 67.21(d)) The overarching policy of the City Attorney states: "According to public policy, the Supervisor of Records' initial involvement in a dispute over whether records are public is sufficient to gain compliance info~ally-simply by discussing the records and the Sunshine Ordinance's requirements with the responding agency. Furthermore, the policy provides sometimes, a written determination from the Supervisor of Records is necessary, to either:
"[l]nform the responding department that the records withheld are public, and should therefore be disclosed to the petitioner (when the petitioner is right); or
[I]nform the petitioner that the responding department properly withheld the records, while more fully explaining their legal reason for doing so (when the respondent is right)". As relevant here, the dispute herein submitted for formal review on appeal was heard by the Full Sunshine Taskforce on August 1, 2018. Its main purpose was to determine whether first, it had proper jurisdiction to hear the matter and second, whether under San Francisco Administrative Code section 12L it could make a recommendation pertaining to the sufficiency of the records submitted by Respondent Arts Commission and Bayview Opera House. In this dispute however, neither the Complainant nor Respondents were found by the Taskforce to be wrong. Without making any recommendation, the Taskforce closed the matter absent a clear and definitive determination of whether the requested records are
6 19th Annual SOR Report APPENDIX - Page 43 indeed public. However, the Taskforce "urged" Complainant to seek further review and investigation from the Board of Supervisors. The sole basis for closure of the matter was predicated on Respondents testimony that it "complied" with the subject request for production of documents by purportedly producing all of the records in Respondents possession. Complainant's counter contention is that the records produced were entirely nonresponsive to the operative Complaint or never produced at all. For the past 11 months, the Arts Commission and Bayview Opera House have each co-conspired against the people's right to know how government spent $3.1 million dollars on the 2016 historic renovation of the opera house with taxpayer financed funds. The Arts Commission claims that either the Department of Public Works and/or Municipal Transportation Agency know where the missing funds are, even though admitting at some point turning over the management of the project to the latter agencies. Respondent's pretextural excuses for refusal to comply with public disclosure rules and regulations are palpable. Further, the Taskforce materially erred in not applying federal, state, and local law applicable to such requests for records in direct contravention of well-settled public policy. II. SINGLE QUESTION FOR REVIEW ON APPEAL Accordingly, the singular and most relevant question presented for review under this Petition to Supervisor of Records on appeal is whether or not any record, thus far not disclosed by respondents is public? III. STATEMENT OF FACTS A. The Sunshine Taskforce Failed to Consider Williams' Sunshine Ordinance Complaint Included San Francisco Administrative Code section 67.24
The Taskforce failed to consider that Williams' complaint also included the controlling provisions of San Francisco Administrative Code section 67 .24, titled "Public Records That Must Be Disclosed" in addition to section 12L.
7. 19th Annual SOR Report APPENDIX - Page 44 Contrary to the plain wording of the operative Complaint therein filed, the members declined to address the issue of procurement and related ancillary public records, even where clear jurisdiction has heretofore never been disputed. We therefore respectfully appeal the decision and assert our written demand to know how San Francisco government inter alia either has, or have not spent all $5.6 million dollars on the historic renovation of the Bayview Opera House Ruth Williams Memorial Theater. The records produced show only $2.5 million dollars of prime contractor and subcontractor awards, with neither an accounting nor reasonable explanation for a missing balance of $3.1 million dollars. To that end, in behalf of the Bayview Hunters Point Community, we trust the resisting party(s) will not defy a Supervisor of Records order to release the public records. In addition, it is our understanding the Sunshine Ordinance authorizes the Supervisor of Records to undertake all necessary and appropriate measures to secure compliance, including making legal referrals to enforcing agencies. This remedy is appropriate under the circumstances of this case. The Taskforce performs a quasi-judicial function of San Francisco government business. The Taskforce appears to have for some time operated under a mistaken belief that San Francisco Administrative Code section 12L limits the Taskforce to merely "vestical" powers making nonbinding recommendations unlike Administrative Code section 67.24. We included the latter code violation in the body of the Operative Complaint, where the Taskforce retains proper jurisdiction, but declined to issue a ruling under that citation of authority. Our principal arguments before the Sunshine Taskforce were as follows:
~ The Taskforce erred for failure to apply a lawful distinction required of nonprofits applicable to state and federal law, which includes and supplements the San Francisco Administrative Code section l 2L legal definition of nonprofit. Under California law, a nonprofit is presumed to be "created" when a city or government agency contracts with it to perform a delegable service or
8 19th Annual SOR Report APPENDIX - Page 45 function. Thus, a nonprofit board constitutes a "legislative body" subject to the Ralph Brown Act and the Public Records Act. The Bayview Opera House ("BVOH") is incorporated as a federal tax exempt 502(c) 3 Public Benefit Corporation established in 1990. Regardless to when such a corporation was duly formed, it is deemed "created" when it receives a contract charging it with delegable duties and responsibilities of city government could ordinarily or reasonably perform. The BVOH is a recipient of in excess of $500,000 to $700,000 per year in taxpayer financed funds. Moreover, by city action the BVOH also operates a city owned cultural center under a lease hold agreement for $1.00 per year. The city may terminate the lease and withdraw its funding for failure to comply with any terms and conditions of either, or both the grant agreement or lease agreement, including but not limited to any refusal to fully and honestly comply with the Sunshine Ordinance with respect to compliance with any public records request under federal, state, or city laws. B. Arts Commission Executive Director Tom DeCaigny Ordered Ockel Not to Produce Public Records without Consequences. In this case, the Arts Commission is concealing how the funding and operations of the building it owns has been expended by hiding behind the less stringent public disclosure requirements of the BVOH, a non-profit Public Benefits Corporation it clearly controls. Parenthetically, state law requires such non-profits conferred or delegated city government functions to be subject to absolute control to ensure the interest of the public is protected. For example, evidence of record categorically shows early morning e-mails and text messages, wherein Agency Executive Director Tom DeCaigny is telling Bayview Opera House Executive Director Barbara Ockel how to respond and indisputably directed her not to disclose any relevant public records. (File No. 17096: pp. 32-39) The specific text of Mr. DeCaigny' s text message to Ms. Ockel and other co-conspirators is as follows:
9 19th Annual SOR Report APPENDIX - Page 46 From: DeCaigny, Torn (ART) Sent: Thursday, -August 17, 2017 7:48AM To: Patterson; Kate (ART)
I don't believe that the nonprofit BVOH is subject to the Sunshine Ordinance. It is my understanding that the Ordinance only pertains to public agencies in which case the request would need be addressed to the SFAC. Public Works, etc. I'm copying our Public Information Officer, Kate Patterson-Murphy to clarify and advise on next steps. Kate, how should Barbara respond to this request? I imagine she would inform him that the request needs to be addressed and submitted to the appropriate City agencies. When received, we'll like need to invoke a voluminous records extension as it's a pretty extensive request. Thanks, Tom Sent from my iPhone. Please excuse brevity and typos." (bold-letter emphasis added.) (Com. p. 200) Begin forwarded message: From: Barbara Ockel
That request for immediate disclosure was denied by delay for seven months from the effective date of the operative Complaint. On March 7, 2017, the full Sunshine Taskforce voted 9-0 that respondent Arts Commission violated two separate provisions of the Sunshine Ordinance by failing to release the records on a
10 19th Annual SOR Report APPENDIX - Page 47 "rolling basis" and failing to timely produce public records timely. On March 27, 2017, the Chair of the Task.force issued an written opinion specifically citing these violations.file:///C:/Users/Kevin%20Williams/Downloads/sotf order 17096(3 ).pdf IV. LEGAL DISCUSSION Ironically, respondents' redundant reply alleging no documents responsive to valid requests for the production of documents omits that Ms. Ockel takes direction from the Arts Commission staff. More particularly, the above early morning urgent discussion proves Ms. Ockel is under orders emanating from the Executive Director himself, Tom DeCaigny. Sunshine Ordinance Section 67 .34 defines "willful conduct" of any elected official, department head, or other managerial city employee failure to discharge any duties imposed by the Sunshine Ordinance shall be deemed "official misconduct." It would appear apparent that the conduct of Mr. · DeCaigny is in clear violation and inimical to public policy. To wit: Mr. DeCaigny ordered his staff and the BVOH Director not to produce the requested records on both unlawful and unethical grounds. He further ordered his own staff to concoct a voluminous records delay through requesting an undue extension under inapplicable provisions of Gov. Code 6253 et seq. Therefore, the foregoing violations of the Sunshine Ordinance were committed by Mr. DeCaigny in coordinated complicity with other actors named in the operative Complaint. He continues to instruct his staff to deny by inordinate delay disclosure of public records without any consequences, but with legal representation provided directly by the City Attorney's office. A. The City Attorney Issued an Opinion In the Form of An At-Issue Memorandum Representing Respondents Before the August 1, 2018 Sunshine Taskforce Hearing Was Ever Held.
On June 18, 2018, Deputy City Attorney Marc Price Wolf issued an opinion stating that the Task.force had no power or jurisdiction over the Bayview Opera House. More specifically, he erroneously determined before the hearing that it is
11 19th Annual SOR Report APPENDIX - Page 48 not a "legislative body" under the Brown Act and presumably under the Public Records Act pursuant to San Francisco Administrative Code section 67.3( d). In pertinent part, Mr. Wolf opined: "Complainant alleges Bayview Opera House violated the Sunshine Ordinance. However, in order for the Sunshine Ordinance to apply to a non-profit entity, it must first be established that Administrative Code Section 12L, the Non-profit Public Access Ordinance ("NPAO"), applies. Assuming the NPAO applies the Task Force may only have jurisdiction to hear the complaint at this time if it is determined that Complainant followed the enforcement provisions of the NPAO. Enforcement consists of a three step nonbinding dispute resolution process: A mandatory review by the contracting City agency (which is allegedly the Arts Commission in this case), an optional advisory review by the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force, and review by the Board of Supervisors. Administrative Code Section 12L.5(b). If it is determined that the NPAO applies, Complainant must first address his complaint to the City agency with which the Committee has . a contract. Only then can he bring his complaint to the Task Force for optional advisory review." Bayview Opera House, a non-profit organization, is not a board, commission, department, agency nor policy body of the City or any other applicable category under Section 67.3(d) of the Sunshine Ordinance, and is not a legislative body under the Brown Act. As stated above, the NPAO may apply in this case; however, it only applies if the Bayview Opera House receives funding of at least $250,000 and has at least one contract with the City. Administrative Code Section 12L.3(e). Even if the Task Force determines that the Bayview Opera House is subject to the NP AO requirements no provision in NPAO gives the Task Force direct jurisdiction over the Bayview Opera House. In order to hear a dispute under NPAO, a complainant must follow the enforcement
12 19th Annual SOR Report APPENDIX - Page 49 protocol specified in Administrative Code Section 12L.5(b) (see above).
If the T askforce finds that NPAO applies, and that the Complainant followed the enforcement protocol, then the Task Force would only have jurisdiction over the contracting City agency to hold an advisory hearing. jurisdiction over the contracting City." (Complaint No. 1802 pp. 92-93)
B. The City Attorney's Office Is Complicit in Protecting Nefarious Resistance to Compliance with the Sunshine Ordinance by its Indirect Representation of Respondents Arts Commission and Bayview Opera House.
Sunshine Ordinance Section 67 .20(i) categorically provides:
"The San Francisco City Attorney's office shall act to protect and secure the rights of the people of San Francisco to access public information and public meetings and shall not act as legal counsel for any city employee or any person having custody of any public record for purposes of denying access to the public.
The City Attorney may publish legal opinions in response to a request from any person as to whether a record or information is public. All communications with the City Attorney's Office with regard to this ordinance, including petitions, requests for opinion, and opinions shall be public records."
At no time prior to the hearing neither did Williams nor respondents solicit any such opinion as to whether the records requested were public. Respectfully, Deputy City Attorney Marc Wolf issued a formal opinion with controvertible arguments before the effective date of the hearing. It therefore must be reasonably imputed the Taskforce relied upon Mr. Wolf' opinion, which unduly prejudiced Williams from receiving a fair and impartial hearing, both procedurally and indeed on the merits.
13 19th Annual SOR Report APPENDIX - Page 50 Mr. Wolf's opinion although disguised as an At-Issue "Memorandum" is contrary to public policy because it heavily leaned towards denying public access rather than granting public access. Unequivocally, these machinations tender a manifest impression the San Francisco City Attorney is acting as legal counsel, not in behalf of Complainant Williams, but rather respondent agency and its co-conspirator Bayview Opera House, each charged with violations of open government laws. C. Board of Supervisor Malia Cohen Exerts Influence Directly and Indirectly over the BVOH with Family Members Serving on the Board of Directors duly constituting her role as an Ex-officio Member Establishing the Equivalent of a "Legislative Body"
First, under San Francisco Administrative Code section 67.3(d) the Bayview Opera House is an advisory board or a standing committee because it is controlled and influenced by Arts Commission city officials and the current District 10 Supervisor Malia Cohen within the meaning and definition of sections 67(d)(4)(5) and (7). Such influence is directly attributable to the fact that her biological aunt Jackie Cohen is related to the supervisor and makes policy decisions over the Bayview Opera House, including hiring of Supervisor Cohen's biological sister. On information and belief the current President of the BVOH Board of Directors, Mr. Theo Ellington is Supervisor Cohen's familial cousin. Preceding him, late Supervisor Willie B. Kennedy served on the Board. Presently, her grandson is also an active member of the BVOH Board of the Directors. Presently, all of the members have termed out according to the bylaws, but for purely personal and pecuniary gain have remained on the Board illegally and continue to make unauthorized decisions in absolute secrecy with no fiscal accountability. (See "Nonconformance Audit" attached as Exhibit No. 1). Notwithstanding, a legally binding published Attorney General Opinion - No. 01-401 dated March 14, 2002, for which a true and correct copy is hereto
14 19th Annual SOR Report APPENDIX - Page 51 attached as Exhibit No. 2 was also filed with the Taskforce at the August 1, 2018, hearing. The AG has consistently held: "A nonprofit corporation designated by a city to provide programming to a cable television channel set aside for educational purposes is subject to the Public Records Act because it qualifies as a local legislative body under the Brown Act". "In the present circumstances, the city council of the City (an elected legislative body of a local agency) played a role in bringing the Corporation into existence by ( 1) granting a franchise to Cablevision, (2) requiring Cablevision to set aside an educational channel, (3) designating the Corporation as the entity to operate the channel, and (4) indirectly providing the Corporation with an initial capitalization of $57 ,000." The term "created by" in Government Code section 54952, subdivision (c)(l)(A), means "a board, commission, committee, or other multimember body that governs a private corporation ..." [<][] (A) Is created by the elected legislative body in order to exercise authority that may lawfully be delegated by the elected governing body to a private corporation or entity." (§ 54952, subd. (c)(l)(A), italics added.) (Epstein v. Hollywood Entertainment Dist. II Bus. Improvement Dist., supra, 87 Cal.App.4th at p. 870, citing International Longshoremen's & Warehousemen's Union v. Los Angeles Export Terminal, Inc., supra, 69 Cal.App.4th at p. 295.) (holding mutual benefit corporation had been created to exercise governmental authority). Here, the Arts Commission governs the Bayview Opera House under a contract to operate cultural center and second contract to fund cultural programs. "The authority to operate the educational access channel was lawfully delegated to the Corporation by the city council of the City. (See Government Code section 53066; 47 U.S.C. §§ 521, 531; see also International Longshoremen's & Warehousemen's Union v. Los Angeles Export Terminal, Inc., supra, 69 Cal.App.4th at
15 19th Annual SOR Report APPENDIX - Page 52 p. 297 ["a public body may delegate the performance of administrative functions to a private entity if it retains ultimate control"] Government Code section 6252(b) as amended by AB 2937, Stats. 2002, Ch. 1073 provides: "A nongovernmental auxiliary association is not a state agency" and is thus, subject to both the Public Records Act and the Brown Act; California State University, Fresno Assn., Inc. v. Superior Court (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 810, 829; 85 Ops. Cal. Atty. Gen. 55 (2002). administration so that it may safeguard the public interest"]. In this case, the City Arts Commission reserves the right to review and approve any delegable duty or responsibility conferred by it upon the Bayview Opera House concerning the lease hold agreement and programmatic funding. Further, the Arts Commission reserves the right to terminate its authority previously delegated to the Bayview Opera House. However, purely inimical to public policy, the Arts Commission has manufactured a scheme of deception to selectively feign abdication of its authority in violation of California law in order to conceal $3 .1 million dollars in missing taxpayer public funds. V. Public Records Act Local public agencies (see Government Code § 6252, subd. (d)) that are subject to the public disclosure of their records are defined in section 6252, subdivision (b), as follows: "'Local agency' includes a county; city, whether general law or chartered; city and county; school district; municipal corporation; district; political subdivision; or any board, commission or agency thereof; other local public agency; or nonprofit entities that are legislative bodies of a local agency pursuant to subdivisions (c) and (d) of Section 54952."
"The Corporation meets the test for being a local agency as that term is defined in section 6252. As found in answer to the first question, the Corporation is a nonprofit entity whose board of
16 19th Annual SOR Report APPENDIX - Page 53 directors constitutes a "legislative body" pursuant to section 54952, subdivision (c )". Under the prevailing facts and existing circumstances, the BVOH Board of Directors is a "legislative body" created under contract to perform duties delegated to the nonprofit entity for which the city could ordinarily perform itself. A. Nonprofits are considered a Public Body under the Freedom of Information Act as follows:
"A nonprofit is considered a "public body" under both state and federal law when it becomes a Public Benefits Corporation. In particular, nonprofits that receive federal tax exempt status qualify as a "public body" and are thus, subject to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Congress created FOIA to ensure that "public business is performed in an open and public manner".
The Taskforce opinion provided through the City Attorney's Office that section 12L exempts the Respondents from compliance with applicable federal and state open government disclosure requirements is in error and severely misplaced.
B. The Taskforce Ignored Respondent Arts Commission's Top Brass and Upper Management 10-year Record of Repeated Violations of the Sunshine Ordinance supported by Voluminous Anecdotal Testimony and Statistical Evidence of Material Acts of Dishonesty and Moral Turpitude.
Complainant Williams produced undisputed evidence of repeated violations of the Sunshine Ordinance by respondent Arts Commission. These further include 56 sustained violations between 2008 through 2018. This constitutes an average of five adverse findings against the respondent each year spanning a decade, including 19 favoring only one complainant, Ms. Ann Treboux, a homeless white female. (See Exhibit No. 3 Excel Spreadsheet). The Arts Commission and Bayview Opera House and other co-conspirators yet, to be fully ascertained at this time are in direct contravention of the City Charter and other related state and federal laws.
17 19th Annual SOR Report APPENDIX - Page 54 c~ Taskforce Failure to Lodge Evidence of Record Presented at Hearing.
The Sunshine Taskforce failed to consider probative proffers of evidence of respondents past and repeated violations of the Sunshine Ordinance and implicit dishonesty reflected in anecdotal testimony 56 times and supported by as many Orders of Determination issued against the Arts Commission and for the complainants over 10 years. Within this same period the Taskforce issued four "Letters of Referral" to the Mayor, Board of Supervisors, and Ethics Commission recommending employee discipline for failing to send a knowledgeable person with Sunshine Ordinance Training. No action has ever been taken. The Taskforce minutes do not reflect the presentation of the Attorney General Opinion presented to the members with Williams' stated request that it be made part of the record. In addition thereto, the members ignored statistical data of respondent's flagrant history of repeated violations, including citations to an Attorney General Opinion. Relevant testimony of witnesses from the public went on record during public comment who fervently concurred with the testimony and evidence submitted by Williams was politely heard, given no weight and ignored. Given that the finalized minutes omit the evidence filed with the Taskforce at the August 1, 2018 hearing, please find the website link to the oral record of the proceedings, therewith attached agenda and written record submitted herein as Exhibits A, B, and C, respectively to this appeal as shown below: Exhibit A: Taskforce E-mail Notices: https :/Imai 1. vahoo.com/d/search/ke yword=sunshi ne% 25 20taskforce/messages/34822?. intl =us https://mail.yahoo.com/d/search/keyword=sotf%2520bos/messa£?:es/35045/ADiRTzALQ MosW lpZFwd9-Kx vk6A:2?.intl=us
Exhibit B: Agenda and Written Record: https://sfaov .orn/sunshine/sites/default/files/SOTF080118 Item3.pdf
18 19th Annual SOR Report APPENDIX - Page 55 Exhibit C: Audiotape: http://sanfrancisco.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view id=95&clip id=31084 VI. DEMAND FOR PRESERVATION OF EVIDENCE: Appellant does hereby demand that AGENCY including, but not limited to, the appropriate city or county agency, its employees, servants and/or attorneys, maintain and preserve all evidence, documents and tangible materials which relate in any manner whatsoever to the subject matter of this Petition, including until the completion of any and all civil and/or criminal litigation arising from the events which are the subject matter of this Petition. This demand for preservation of evidence includes, but is not limited to, a demand that all public agency entities preserve all tapes, logs, and/ or other tangible materials of any kind until the completion of any and all civil and/or criminal litigation arising from the subject matter of this administrative demand for public procurement and other related records. VII. CONCLUSION For each of the reasons cited herein, we respectfully request an order directing the respondents to release the public records withheld. Concomitantly, it is further requested that the Supervisor of Records issue an opinion appertaining to the whether or not any of the documents sought and heretofore denied are public pursuant to both San Francisco Administrative Code section 67.24 and 12L. The bold pronouncements by City Attorney Herrera regarding "honest and open government" dictate serious inquiry into what San Francisco government did with $3.1 million dollars that to date is missing and otherwise cannot be accounted for, by the respondents, to date.
Dated: August 24, 2018 KEVIN B. WILLIAMS 1s11Gevin ~. Wiltia.ftt-5 Appellant
19 19th Annual SOR Report APPENDIX - Page 56 TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL State of California
BILL LOCKYER Attorney General
OPINION No. 01-401
of March 14, 2002
BILL LOCKYER Attorney General
MARJORIE E. COX Deputy Attorney General
THE HONORABLE TONY STRICKLAND, MEMBER OF THE STATE ASSEMBLY, has requested an opinion on the following questions:
1. Do the open meeting requirements of the Ralph M. Brown Act apply to the meetings of the governing board of a private, nonprofit corporation formed for the purpose of providing programming for a cable television channel set aside for educational use by a cable operator pursuant to its franchise agreement with a city and subsequently designated by the city to provide the programming services?
2. Do the records disclosure requirements of the Public Records Act apply to such a corporation?
1 01-401
19th Annual SOR Report APPENDIX - Page 57 CONCLUSIONS
1. The open meeting requirements of the Ralph M. Brown Act apply to the meetings of the governing board of a private, nonprofit corporation formed for the purpose of providing programming for a cable television channel set aside for educational use by a cable operator pursuant to its franchise agreement with a city and subsequently designated by the city to provide the programming services.
2. The records disclosure requirements of the Public Records Act apply to a private, nonprofit corporation formed for the purpose of providing programming for a cable television channel set aside for educational use by a cable operator pursuant to its franchise agreement with a city and subsequently designated by the city to provide the programming services.
ANALYSIS
In 1995, the City of Thousand Oaks ("City") granted Ventura County Cablevision ("Cablevision") a franchise to install and operate a cable television system within the City. Cablevision agreed to set aside a channel for educational use and to operate the channel until such time as the City designated a nonprofit corporation to assume operational control. Cablevision also agreed to grant $25,000 for the purchase of television production equipment to a consortium of educators to be designated by the City. 1
In 1996, a nonprofit public benefit corporation ("Corporation") was organized with the stated purpose of 'join[ing] together the area's schools, universities, and colleges and other educational organizations in order to establish and implement policies for the management, utilization, programming and scheduling of one or more dedicated educational access community cable TV channels ...." The City designated the Corporation as the entity responsible for programming the educational access channel ("Channel 21 ") to be set aside under Cablevision's franchise agreement. The City also designated the Corporation as the recipient of Cablevision's $25,000 production equipment grant and similar grants, thereby providing the Corporation with an initial capitalization of $57,000.
1 The Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984 (47 U.S.C. §§ 521-573) authorizes local governments to require cable operators to enter franchise agreements governing the operation of their cable systems and to set aside channels for "public, educational, or governmental use" (47 U.S.C. §§ 521, 531) "as part of the consideration an operator gives in return for permission to install cables under city streets and to use public rights-of-way" (Denver Area Ed. Telecommunications Consortium, Inc. v. FCC (1996) 518 U.S. 727, 734 (plur. opn. of Breyer, J.). (See also Gov. Code, § 53066; 46 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 22, 24 (1965).)
2 01-401
19th Annual SOR Report APPENDIX - Page 58 The Corporation currently has five directors, three of whom are appointed by the Conejo Valley Unified School District ("School District"); the other two directors must be approved by the School District. One of the Corporation's directors is a School District trustee. The School District provides $200 annually towards the Corporation's franchise fees.
Insofar as we have been advised, no City officer has served as a director of the Corporation, and the City has not directly contributed money to the Corporation since the original grants of $57,000. However, the City has the right to review and approve any guidelines the Corporation has or might adopt concerning the use of Channel 21 and has the right to terminate the authority previously delegated to the Corporation to provide programming for the channel.
1. Public Meeting R<;quirements
The first question to be resolved is whether the meetings of the Corporation's board of directors are subject to the open meeting requirements of the Ralph M. Brown Act (Gov. Code, §§ 54950-54962; "Brown Act").2 We conclude that they are.
The Brown Act generally requires the legislative body of a local public agency to hold its meetings open to members of the public. (§§ 54951, 54952, 54953, 54962.) Agendas ofthe meetings must be posted(§§ 54954.1, 54954.2), and the public must be given an opportunity to address the legislative body on items of interest(§ 54954.3).
The evident purposes of the Brown Act are to allow the public to attend, observe, monitor, and participate in the decision-making process at the local level of government. Not only are the actions taken by the legislative body to be monitored by the public but also the deliberations leading to the actions taken. (§ 54950; see Roberts v. City ofPalmdale (1993) 5 Cal.4th 363, 373, 375; Frazer v. Dixon Unified School Dist. (1993) 18 Cal.App.4th 781, 794-798; Stockton Newspapers, Inc. v. Redevelopment Agency (1985) 171 Cal.App.3d 95, 100; Sacramento Newspaper Guild v. Sacramento County Bd. of Suprs. (1968) 263 Cal.App.2d 41, 45.)
Subdivision (a) of section 54953 provides for meetings oflocal agencies to be open to the public:
"All meetings of the legislative body of a local agency shall be open and public, and all persons shall be permitted to attend any meeting of the
2 All references hereafter to the Government Code are by section number only.
3 01-401
19th Annual SOR Report APPENDIX - Page 59 legislative body of a local agency, except as otherwise provided in this chapter."
A "local agency" is defined in section 54951 as follows:
"As used in this chapter, 'local agency' means a county, city, whether general law or chartered, city and county, town, school district, municipal corporation, district, political subdivision, or any board, commission or agency thereof, or other local public agency."
The term "legislative body" is defined in section 54952 to include the board of private corporations in specified circumstances:
"As used in this chapter, 'legislative body' means:
"
"(c )( 1) A board, commission, committee, or other multimember body that governs a private corporation or entity that either:
"(A) Is created by the elected legislative body in order to exercise authority that may lawfully be delegated by the elected governing body to a private corporation or entity.
"(B) Receives funds from a local agency and the membership of whose governing body includes a member of the legislative body of the local agency appointed to that governing body as a full voting member by the legislative body of the local agency.
" "
Under the language of section 54952, subdivision ( c)(1 )(A), the board of directors of the Corporation would constitute a "legislative body" subject to the Brown Act ifthe Corporation was created by an elected legislative body to exercise authority lawfully delegated by such elected legislative body. (See Epstein v. Hollywood Entertainment Dist. II Bus. Improvement Dist. (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 862, 868-873; International Longshoremen 's & Warehousemen's Union v. Los Angeles Export Terminal, Inc. (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 287, 293-300.)
4 01-401
19th Annual SOR Report APPENDIX - Page 60 In the present circumstances, the city council ofthe City (an elected legislative body of a local agency) played a role in bringing the Corporation into existence by ( 1) granting a franchise to Cablevision, (2) requiring Cablevision to set aside an educational channel, (3) designating the Corporation as the entity to operate the channel, and (4) indirectly providing the Corporation with an initial capitalization of $57,000. The term "created by" in section 54952, subdivision ( c)(1 )(A), means that the "City 'played a role in bringing' the [private corporation] 'into existence.' [Citation.]" (Epstein v. Hollywood Entertainment Dist. II Bus. Improvement Dist., supra, 87 Cal.App.4th at p. 870, citing International Longshoremen 's & Warehousemen's Union v. Los Angeles Export Terminal, Inc., supra, 69 Cal.App.4th at p. 295.)
The authority to operate the educational access channel was lawfully delegated to the Corporation by the city council of the City. (See § 53066; 4 7 U.S.C. §§ 521, 531; see also International Longshoremen 's & Warehousemen's Union v. Los Angeles Export Terminal, Inc., supra, 69 Cal.App.4th at p. 297 ["a public body may delegate the performance of administrative functions to a private entity if it retains ultimate control over administration so that it may safeguard the public interest"].) Here, the City has reserved the right to review and approve any guidelines the Corporation has concerning the use of Channel 21 and has reserved the right to terminate its authority previously delegated to the Corporation.
Both of the conditions of section 54952, subdivision ( c )(1 )(A), have therefore been met, resulting in the Corporation's board coming within the meaning of a "legislative body" for purposes of the Brown Act's requirements.
Moreover, the Corporation's board also constitutes a "legislative body" under the terms of section 54952, subdivision (c)(l)(B). The Corporation receives funds from the School District, a local agency(§ 54951 ). Not only does the School District appoint three of the Corporation's five directors, it must approve the appointments of the other two directors as well. One of the School District's trustees is a Corporation director with full voting rights. Hence, the Corporation's board constitutes a "legislative body" as defined in section 54952, subdivision (c)(l)(B).
We conclude that the open meeting requirements ofthe Brown Act apply to the meetings of the governing board of a private, nonprofit corporation formed for the purpose of providing programming for a cable television channel set aside for educational use by a cable operator pursuant to its franchise agreement with a city and subsequently designated by the city to provide the programming services.
5 01-401
19th Annual SOR Report APPENDIX - Page 61 2. Public Records Requirements
The second question to be resolved is whether the records of the Corporation are subject to the requirements of the Public Records Act(§§ 6250-6276.48). We conclude that they are.
Under the Public Records Act, a state or local public agency is generally required to allow any member of the public to inspect the records in its custody. (§§ 6250, 6252, 6253; Register Div. of Freedom Newspaper, Inc. v. County of Orange (1984) 158 Cal.App.3d 893, 901.) "[A]ccess to information concerning the conduct of the people's business is a fundamental and necessary right of every person in this state." (§ 6250; see Times Mirror Co. v. Superior Court(1991) 53 Cal.3d 1325, 1338; Wilson v. Superior Court (1996) 51Cal.App.4th1136, 1141.)
Local public agencies (see § 6252, subd. (d)) that are subject to the public disclosure of their records are defined in section 6252, subdivision (b), as follows:
" 'Local agency' includes a county; city, whether general law or chartered; city and county; school district; municipal corporation; district; political subdivision; or any board, commission or agency thereof; other local public agency; or nonprofit entities that are legislative bodies of a local agency pursuant to subdivisions (c) and (d) of Section 54952."
The Corporation meets the test for being a local agency as that term is defined in section 6252. As found in answer to the first question, the Corporation is a nonprofit entity whose board of directors constitutes a "legislative body" pursuant to section 54952, subdivision ( c). 3 Our answer to the first question thus answers the second question.
We conclude that the disclosure requirements ofthe Public Records Act apply to a private, nonprofit corporation formed for the purpose of providing programming for a cable television channel set aside for educational use by a cable operator pursuant to its franchise agreement. . with a city and subsequently designated by the city to provide the programmmg services.
*****
3 Subdivision ( d) of section 54952 refers to the lessees of certain hospitals.
6 01-401
19th Annual SOR Report APPENDIX - Page 62 sfac
5an Francisco Arts CommiYIOh June 13, 2017 EdwinM.Lee Mayor Barbara Ockel Tom OeCeigny Executive Director Director of Cuitural Affairs Bayview Opera House 401 Van Ness Avonue, Suite 325 4705 Third St San Francisco, CA 94102 San Francisco, CA 94124 SFAC Galleries 401 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 126 San Francisco, CA 94102 Subject: FY16-17Monitorlng: Final Status Letter for Bayview Opera Street Artists Licensing House 401 Van Ness Avenue. Suite 1248 San Francisco, CA 94102 Department/Program Contract Name/Description tel 415·252-2100 OEWD GF-Econ fax 415·934·1022 sfartscommission.org ARTS Cultural Center facebook.com/sfartscommission twitter.com/SFAC Dear Ms. Ockel:
Thank you for your timely response to our monitoring report letter, received 06/13/2017. In your letter, you described actions your organization has adopted
City and County of San Francisco and implemented to address the concerns raised in the monitoring report letter. Below is a summary of the findings listed in the monitoring report letter, corrective action taken/planned, and the status of each finding as of the close of this monitoring season. -- Category Standard Action Taken I Status Planned 1.Agency- g. Includes annual cash Not Yet in wide Budget flow projections [pilot Conformance measure] 5.Fiscal b. Current (updated within Policies and Not Yet in Policies and the past two calendar procedures will Conformance Procedures years or to reflect be updated by monitoring/audit November 30, recommendations) [Best 2017. -- Practice] 5.Fiscal c.Cornplete(contains Policies and Not Yet in Policies and internal controls, financial procedures will Conformance
19th Annual SOR Report APPENDIX - Page 63 June 14, 2017 Page2
Category Standard Action Ta.ken I Status Planned Procedures reporting, accounts be updated by payable and receivable, November 30, payroll and procurement) 2017. 6. Financial e. Profit and Loss Submission still No.tYetin Reports Statement: Shows year-to- collapsed all Conformance date (YTD) income and programs and expense by program/ all events, contract/ funding source, respectively, including indirect costs into one column 9.Board b. Minutes show that Executive Not Yet in Oversight financial reports are director will Conformance shared with the Board at meet quarterly least quarterly, or more with the co- regularly when financial treasurers to concerns warrant it discuss quarterly financial reports. g.Board f. Board conducts an A review was NotYetin Oversight Executive Director presented to the Conformance performance review board in May annually 2017, but
evidence was 1
_, -~~ '--~"'o'"'"'''"-- ,. ______!l_qtprovid•~--- 10. Public b. At least two meetings Access with quorum status are IConformance open to the public each year 10.Public c. These two meetings are In Access announced to the general Conformance public at least 30 days in I advance through the SF Public Library and the Clerk of the Board of
19th Annual SOR Report APPENDIX - Page 64 June 14, 2017 Page3
- Ca.tego:ry Standard Action Taken I Status Pl&n.ned Supervisors 11. a. Documentation that Policies and NotYetin Subcontracts procurement procedures procedures will Conformance (and/or the process for be updated by ' entering into legal November 30, agreements) in the 2017. Contractor's fiscal policies and procedures were followed by Contractor to select subcontractors (if applicable) 14. b. Plan contains In Emergency contingency planning, Conformance Operations including an alternate site, Plan if needed 17.Boardof h. Conflict of interest A policy has Not Yet in Directors policy exists been developed Conformance Best but it has not Practices yet been signed by all board members. ~-----
For any item labeled "In Conformance," the Department has determined that the actions described in your letter are satisfactory and the standard has been met.
Findings labeled "Not Yet in Conformance" require completion of the City approved corrective action plan within the timeline established in the plan (or reasonable progress toward completion for longer-term action plans) in order to come into conformance with City monitoring standards.
StarldsrdswJD bereviewed iIJ.128rtyea.zr'sIDDDitorlrJgcycle. Per tbs Ci~a cor.rectivea.ctianpalicy, certab:J.fiIJ.dingsrepeatediD. twoOODSecutiveyeBI's
19th Annual SOR Report APPENDIX - Page 65 June142017 Page4
I1J&yresultizzymII'Ol'//Bnif:Bti.on1JeirJgplacsdonE18fi8tedCon.CS1'D.statua. General.zz~vaa-iD.cludi.Dg~toizDpletDSD.tor to show re&SOD&bleJJ1.'0llNJ88toward i"lPlementsti.on oflUl &pprovedplaD. by tbs establisheddes~1Z11J,yaJso:resultizzbefngplacedonEJ.evatedGoncem status.
NODIJZditsrer.oai.zz OTJ Jillevated COTJCSZ'ZJ statwJ u.zztll theybsveimplemsoted 1U1. approved carrecti.vesctlonplaD. to tbs BStislBctl.on offtmdtngOity dep&rtms:nt(s). Nonpra!J.ts on Elevated Ccmcer.nsfatwJ are USUBJUrequmd. to p&rtici.pstsbl City-IDDDitored tecbDicaJ ssslstaD.ce to addl'eea oufsfBD.dl:Dg J1aca18D.d campli8JlC8 flnilfngs. EJ.evated Concer.n wJll.zzotresulti.zz deffmdlDg, tboughif& .zzonprofit is conti:JluaJJ;rrmrespoD81.ve to teclmicaJ assJsf:&rlce and reuJsins out ofcamp.li&lJ.CB T!Vitb.rzJDDitori.Dg:requiremsD.f:s, tbs sf,atus..l.ZJ5.T 'be heigbtsried toBedFJ&g, for wbl.cb. de-tlmdb:Jgis 8D. option. Cerf&JD. :l:IIJ.ilinp repeated l:D. three CODSBCUti.veye&I'SIIJ&Y aJsoresultin.your org&IJ}za,ti.o.TJ. beiIJg plscedQlZ BedFlagstatua.
Formmei.zzforma.ti.ononElevatedCon.cer.nstatll4aswallasthssl;a,n.ds,rd :a:xmitor.!Dg&J:J.d correctl.ve actio.TJ.proce84pieasereviewths attacb.ed Corrective Action Palicy.
Please contact me at (415) 252-2239 should you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Robynn Takayama Program Officer cc: Jerrold Joseph, BVOH
Rey Okamoto OEWD Robynn Takayama ARTS
19th Annual SOR Report APPENDIX - Page 66 " .._,I " •"" :f.676922 lV13'
ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION • • r::NDOF;SED i=iLED OF ·:t :r.!'c·:;eec:lhl~l~;st-:~e ~: l~r: Slnlo ot CttMlomi1 BAYVIEW OPERA HOUSE, INC. DEC 31990
MARCH FONG EU, Secr&l:l!Y c.f SIF.te ARTICLE I
The name of this corporation is Bayview Opera House, Inc.
ARTICLE II
This corporation is a nonprofit public benefit corporation and is not organized for the private gain of any person. It is organized under the Nonprofit Public Benefit Corporation Law for charitable purposes.
This corporation is organized exclusively for charitable purposes within the meaning of Section 501 (c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954.
The specific purpose of this corporation is to provide a community-based resource to engender public enjoyment and cultiva tion ~f the arts in the Bayview district of San Francisco and in the San Francisco Bay Region. To meet these objectives, this corporation shall raise funds and promote financial and other support for projects and programs in the arts and education.
ARTICLE III
The name and address in the State of California of this corporation's initial agent for service of process is:
GAIL REID 4705 THIRD STREET SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94124.
ARTICLE IV
No substantial part of the activities of this corporation shall consist of carrying on propaganda, or otherwise attempting to influence legislation, and the corporation shall not participate or intervene in any political campaign (including the publishing or distribution of statements) on behalf of any candidates for public office.
19th Annual SOR Report APPENDIX - Page 67 ., .. ARTICLES OF I~C~RATION • I OF BAYVIEW OPERA"lousE, I~C. 'i P .:\GE 2
ARTICLE V
The property of this corporation is irrevocably dedicated to charitable purposes set forth in Article II above. No part of the net earnings of this corporation shall inure to the benefi~ of any of its directors, officers, trustees, private shareholders or members, or to individuals.
Upon the dissolution or winding up of the cor?oration, its assets remaini~g after payment, or provision of payment, of all debts and liabilities. of this corooration. shall be distribu~ed to a nonprofit fund, foundation or corporation of similar charitable purposes which is organized and operated exclusively for charitable ?Urposes and which has established its tax exempt status under Section 501 (c) (3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 (or the cort;esponding provision ,of any future United States Inte-rnal Revenue law) and which has established its tax exempt status under Section 2370ld of the California Revenue and Taxation Code (or the corresponding section of any future California revenue and tax law).
DECLARATION
We declare that we are the persons whose names are subscribed below. We collectively are all the incorporators of the Bayview Opera House. Inc. and the persons who executed the above Articles of Incorporation and that this instrument is our act and deed.
DATED: November 29, 1990
George Mix, Jr.,
Scott Madison,
Gail Reid, Incorporator
19th Annual SOR Report APPENDIX - Page 68 • STATE OF CALIFORNIA • • FRANCHISE TAX BOARD P.O. BOX 942857 SACRAMENTO, CA 94257-4040 Telephone: (916) 369-4171 In reply ref er to: 344: VGL:ap/g
December 31, 1990
BAYVIEH OPERA IIXJSE, INC. 4705 '1hird Street San Francisco, Ca. 94124
Purpose Charit.able Form of Organization Corporation Accounting Period Ending June 30 Organization Number
On the basis of information submitted and provided your present operations continue unchanged or conform to those proposed In your application, you are exempt from state franchise or income tax under Section 23701 d, Revenue and Taxation Code. Any change In operation, character or purpose of the organization must be reported Immediately to this o~ice so that we may determine the effect on your exempt status. Any change of name or address also must be reported.
You are required to file Form 199 (Exempt Organization Annual Information Return} or Form 1998 (Exempt Organization Annual Information Statement) on or before the 15th day of the 5th month (4¥2 months) after the close of your accounting period. See annual instructions with forms for requirements.
"vou are not required to file state franchise or income tax returns unless you have Income subject to the unrelated business Income tax under Section 23731 of the Code. In this event, you are required to file Form 109 (Exempt Organization Business Income Tax Return) by the 15th day of the 5th month (4¥2 months) after the close of your annual accounting period.
If the organization is incorporating, this approval will expire unless incorporation is completed with the Secretary of State within 60 days.
Exemption from federal Income or other taxes and other state taxes requires separate applications. OOI'E: 'Ibis exemptioo is issued on the ccn:Ution that a federal exemption is applied and a copy of the final determination letter is furnished to this office within 9 ioonths fran the date of this letter 6 ~Scott Exempts and Special Tax Unit .. cc: Secretary of state Registrar of Charitable Trusts Gail Reid
FT8 420t (llEV t·l7J
19th Annual SOR Report APPENDIX - Page 69 Russi, Brad (CAT)
From: Lauren Ward
It is my position that the exemptions cited by the Treasurer/Tax Collector's as a basis for withholding the record and for the numerous redactions are inapplicable and improperly asserted.
Nonetheless, I withdraw my appeal.
Thank you for your assistance in this matter.
Lauren Ward Public Records Coordinator
From: Russi, Brad (CAT)
I understand that the Treasurer-Tax Collector has provided further clarification regarding the one document they have withheld, which is a record ofthe Assessor-Recorder's office. Do you continue to take issue with their response?
Bradley Russi Deputy City Attorney San Francisco City Attorney's Office City Hall, Room 234 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place San Francisco, CA 94102 ·
From: Lauren Ward
Dear Mr. Russi,
Additional records were provided. However, an unknown number of records continued to be improperly withheld.
Lauren Ward Public Records Coordinator
1 19th Annual SOR Report APPENDIX - Page 70 Payment Processing Services, LLC 237 Hanbury Road East, Suite 17-357, Chesapeake, Virginia 23322 T 757.389.8689 Ext. 223 F 804.237.0196 ltwa [email protected] www.expertmoneyfinders.com
"Be joyful today... " Psalms 118:24
LTW/gc
***PLEASE NOTE MY NEW EMAIL ADDRESS: [email protected] * * *
From: Russi, Brad (CAT)
Ms. Ward-
I understand that the Treasurer-Tax Collector has further responded to your public records request. Please let me know if the issues raised in your petition have been resolved. Thank you.
Bradley Russi Deputy City Attorney San Francisco City Attorney's Office City Hall, Room 234 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place San Francisco, CA 94102 Telephone: 415-554-4645 Facsimile: 415-554-4699 [email protected]
From: Lauren Ward
September 6, 2018
Via Email and Priority US Mail 9405 5112 9837 0361 7234 35: Dennis J. Herrera, City Attorney Attn. General Government Team 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place (Room 234) San Francisco, CA 94102
Copy Via Email:
2 19th Annual SOR Report APPENDIX - Page 71 Jose Cisneros, Treasurer-Tax Collector City and County of San Francisco Treasurer's Office City Hall, Room 140 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place San Francisco, CA 94102
RE: Supervisor of Records Appeal (Our File 135209)
Dear Mr. Herrera:
Please see attached appeal.
Lauren Ward Public Records Coordinator
Payment Processing Services, LLC 237 Hanbury Road East, Suite 17-357, Chesapeake, Virginia 23322 T 757.389.8689 Ext. 223 F 804.237.0196 [email protected] www.expertmoneyfinders.com
"Be joyful today... " Psalms 118:24
LTW/gc
* * * PLEASE NOTE MY NEW EMAIL ADDRESS: [email protected] * * *
From: Sunshine, TTX (TIX)
Please see the attached concerning your California Public Records Act request to the SF Treasurer & Tax Collector.
Regards,
Legal Section
Office of the Treasurer & Tax Collector
City and County of San Francisco
P.O. Box 7426
3 19th Annual SOR Report APPENDIX - Page 72 San Francisco, CA 94120-7426
4 19th Annual SOR Report APPENDIX - Page 73 PAYMENT PROCESSING Expert Money Finders SERVICES. LLC 129 Hanbury Road West, Suite 203 Chesapeake, VA 23322
September 6, 2018
Via Email and Priority US Mail 9405 5112 9837 0361 7234 35: Dennis J. Herrera, City Attorney Attn. General Government Team 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place (Room 234) San Francisco, CA 94102
Copy Via Email: Jose Cisneros, Treasurer-Tax Collector City and County of San Francisco Treasurer's Office City Hall, Room 140 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place San Francisco, CA 94102
RE: Supervisor of Records Appeal (Our File 135209)
Dear Mr. Herrera:
Pursuant to (S.F. Administrative Code§§ 67.20(c) and 67.2 l(d)), I hereby appeal the failure to produce -and the improper redaction of - public records by the Office of the Treasurer and Tax Collector (the "County").
By email dated August 7, 2018 I requested public records ("CPRA Request") pursuant to the California Constitution, Article I, Section 3, subdivision (b ), and the California Public Records Act, California Government Code Section 6250, et seq. ("CPRA") (see my CPRA Request attached hereto as Exhibit A).
In its untimely August 31, 2018 letter, the County failed to respond - or provide any records at all - for much of the request. And, the limited records the County did produce were improperly redacted. (see the County's letter and redacted records provided attached hereto as Exhibit B). And, in violation of California Government Code 6253(d), I was not informed of the names and titles or positions of each person responsible for the denials.
For 24 specific properties, I requested:
I. Any record(s) evidencing, reflecting, referring to, or related to the entity name (taxpayer) associated with each amount.
Records partially provided, improper redactions
2. Any record(s) evidencing, reflecting, referring to, or related to the reason(s) a refund is not eligible be issued.
No records were provided
19th Annual SOR Report APPENDIX - Page 74 Mr. Dennis Herrera September 6, 2018 Page 2 of3
3. All records evidencing, reflecting, referring to, or related to any/all refund(s) of each, including, but not limited to:
(a) All external and internal requests to reissue, approved or denied (cover letter, email, etc.); (b) Claim forms; ( c) Power of attorney; (d) Internal approvals or denials, documentation, computer comments, notes, etc.; ( e) All communications between any employee or agent of your agency/entity and any other person or entity, including, but not limited to, all documents, correspondences, letters, electronic mail, memorandums, computer comments, notes, etc.
No records were provided
The California Constitution, article I, section 3, subdivision (b)(I) provides "[t]he people have the right of access to information concerning the conduct of the people's business, and therefore, the meetings of public bodies and the writings of public officials and agencies shall be open to public scrutiny." The California Constitution also requires the County to broadly construe the CPRA to the extent it furthers the people's right of access and narrowly construe the CPRA to the extent it limits the right of access. (Cal. Const., art. I,§ 3, subd. (b)(2).) (Office ofInspector General v. Superior Court (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 695, 709, quoting Williams v. Superior Court ( 1993) 5 Cal.4th 337, 346.) [courts must narrowly construe any statute limiting the people's right of access to public records].)
It is well held that a public record maybe withheld only ifthe agency shows that "on the facts of the particular case the public interest served by not disclosing the record clearly outweighs the public interest served by disclosure of the record." This provision contemplates a case-by-case balancing process, with the burden of proof on the proponent of nondisclosure to demonstrate a clear overbalance on the side of confidentiality." (Long Beach Police Officers Assn. v. City of Long Beach, 59 Cal. 4th 59 - Cal: Supreme Court 2014 quoting Michaelis, Montanari & Johnson v. Superior Court (2006) 38 Cal.4th I 065, 1071 [44Cal.Rptr.3d 663, 136 P.3d 194].)
The County curiously asserts that the real estate property tax records withheld are "confidential taxpayediling information under California Government Code sections [sic] 6254(i) ... "
California Government Code Section 6254(i) allows the withholding of "information required from any taxpayer in connection with the collection oflocal taxes that is received in confidence and the disclosure of the information to other persons would result in unfair competitive disadvantage to the person supplying the information.
Emphasis added.
This provision requires two prongs to be met, (1) that the information was received by a taxpayer in confidence and (2) disclosure would result in in unfair competitive disadvantage. Assuming, arguendo, the County could carry its burden to show that the information was expressly received by a taxpayer in confidence and that providing the information somehow would result in a "competitive disadvantage" (which l in no way concede), the County simply cannot carry its burden necessary to show an unfair competitive disadvantage.
Section 6254(i) is inapplicable to the records withheld.
19th Annual SOR Report APPENDIX - Page 75 Mr. Dennis Herrera September 6, 2018 Page 3 of3
Next, the County offers a bald assertion that ''the information is subject to the official information privilege ... (California Government Code section 6254(k); California Evidence Code section I 040)."
California Government Code section 6254(k) allows the withholding of "Records, the disclosure of which is exempted or prohibited pursuant to federal or state law, including, but not limited to, provisions of the Evidence Code relating to privilege."
California Evidence Code section 1040(a) defines "official information" as "information acquired in confidence by a public employee in the course of his or her duty and not open, or officially disclosed, to the public prior to the time the claim of privilege is made."
Real estate tax records are public records and are not exempted or prohibited pursuant to federal or state law. And, the County has not provided any evidence (or even an explanation) to support a finding that the withheld records were expressly acquired in confidence. Further, it is well held that the official information privilege is conditional and attached only when "there is a necessity of preserving the confidentiality of the information ... " County of Orange v. Superior Court (2000} 79 Cal. App. 4th 759, 763. The County has not provided any evidence (or even an explanation) as to the factual necessity of preserving the purported confidentiality of the public real estate tax records.
California Government Code section 6254(k) and California Evidence Code section 1040(a} are inapplicable to the records withheld.
The agency has violated CPRA by failing to timely and fully produce the records requested at Item 2 and Item 3, and has improperly reacted records it has produced responsive to Item 1.
I am aware that Government Code Section 6258 permits an action seeking a writ of mandate, injunctive or declaratory relief, including an award of costs and attorneys' fees. However, l would prefer not to escalate.
To save the aggravation and unnecessary cost inherent to litigation, I respectfully request that this appeal be granted and I be provided the documents via email to [email protected] as requested.
Item 1: Please provide all the records, unredacted.
Item 2: Please produce the records or an appropriate statutory response
Item 3: Please produce the records or an appropriate statutory response
Pursuant to California Government Code 6253(d), please also inform of the names and titles or positions of each person responsible for any denials.
Thank you for your attention in this matter. ~uruJ Lauren Ward Public Records Coordinator
19th Annual SOR Report APPENDIX - Page 76 EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT A
19th Annual SOR Report APPENDIX - Page 77 G. Harold Christian
From: Lauren Ward Sent: Tuesday, August 7, 2018 9:01 AM To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Cc: G. Harold Christian Subject: CPRA request for tax records (Our File 135209) Attachments: 2018 June 18 ltr to G Harold Christian of Payment Processing Services.pdf; Responsive Excel Spreadsheet Pending Refunds as of 061518 - PRA.xlsx
Importance: High
Via Email:
Jose Cisneros, Treasurer-Tax Collector City and County of San Francisco Treasurer's Office City Hall, Room 140 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place San Francisco, CA 94102 CPRA REQUEST for check records (Our File)
Dear Mr. Cisneros and Official Records Custodian:
I am in receipt of the attached, thank you. I seek additional records.
Accordingly, pursuant to the California Constitution, Article I, Section 3, subdivision {b), and the California Public Records Act, California Government Code Section 6250, et seq., I respectfully request you produce copies of public records in an electronic format to that relate to the following:
TOTAL REFUND# TYPE BLOCK LOT YEAR REFUND 1702640041 ES 3701 65 2017 $499,648.50 1702640042ES 3701 65 2017 $499,648.50 1702840045PT 3724 72 2010 $303,910.91 1702840046PT 3724 72 2010 $303,910.91 1702640052ES 3780007A 2017 $269,480.74 1704640053ES 3780007A 2017 $269,480.74 1702640054ES 3780 72 2017 $229,336.86 1702640055ES 3780 72 2017 $229,336.86 1702640048ES 3780 6 2017 $206, 151.32 1702640049ES 3780 6 2017 $206,151.32 1702840047PT 3724 72 2011 $130,923.73 1702840048PT 3724 72 2011 $130,923.73 1702590057PT 3708 56 2011 $94,688.64 1702590058PT 3708 56 2011 $94,688.64 1702590059PT 3708 56 2012 $91, 168.70 1702590060PT 3708 56 2012 $91,168.70 1702640050ES 3780 7 2017 $20,336.15 1702640051ES 3780 7 2017 $20,336.15 1702410072SC 1586 14 2017 $18,653.50 1702410073SC 1586 14 2017 $18,653.50
1
19th Annual SOR Report APPENDIX - Page 78 1702890051 SC 3617 8 2017 $18,087.78 1702890052SC 3617 8 2017 $18,087.78 1702890084SC 9999 58 2017 $14,653.75 1702890085SC 9999 58 2017 $14,653.75
For the above, please provide:
1. Any record(s) evidencing, reflecting, referring to. or related to the entity name (taxpayer) associated with each amount.
2. Any record(s) evidencing, reflecting, referring to, or related to the reason(s) a refund is not eligible be issued.
3. All records evidencing, reflecting, referring to, or related to any/all refund(s) of each, including, but not limited to:
(a) All external and internal requests to reissue, approved or denied (cover letter, email, etc.); {b) Claim forms; (c) Power of attorney; (d) Internal approvals or denials, documentation, computer comments, notes, etc.; {e) All communications between any employee or agent of your agency/entity and any other person or entity, including, but not limited to, all documents, correspondences, letters, electronic mail, memorandums, computer comments, notes, etc.
Please treat each numbered request for records as a separate and discrete request, so that any delay in producing one request does not delay the production of any other request. And, for each numbered request, please inform me if, after a reasonable search, no responsive records whatsoever were located (i.e., 1. No records, 2 (a) Responsive records attached, 2 (b) No records, 3. No records. 4. No records, etc.). See Gov. Code, § 6253, subd. (c).
Please also inform me if you determine to withhold a responsive record its entirety or disclose it in redacted form. If you do intend to disclose any responsive record in redacted form, I ask that you redact that record for the time being (by blacking it out not whiting it out) and make the rest of the records available as requested. If you do determine to withhold any record in its entirety or redact any part of a disclosable record, please provide (i) a signed notification citing the legal authorities on which you rely and the reason(s) therefor, and {ii) the name and title of each person responsible for the
decision. Gov. Code, §§ 6253, subd. (d), 62551 subd. (b).
Finally, pursuant to Gov. Code, § 6253.1, please assist me in identifying records and information responsive to my request or purpose of my request, describe the information technology and physical location in which the records exist, and provide suggestions for overcoming any practical basis for denying access to the records or information sought.
Thank you for your assistance in fulfilling this request.
Lauren Ward Public Records Coordinator
Payment Processing Services, LLC 237 Hanbury Road East. Suite 17-357, Chesapeake, Virginia 23322 T 757.389.8689 Ext. 223 F 804.237.0196 [email protected] www.expertmoneyfinders.com
"Be joyfultoday.. •Psalms 118.24
LTW/gc
'•*PLEASE NOTE MY NEW EMAIL ADDRESS: illYAfm.@~ES!ml!QliJm:JfilmB§,QQM
From: Sunshine, TIX (TIX)
2
19th Annual SOR Report APPENDIX - Page 79 Please see the attached concerning your California Public Records Act request to the SF Treasurer & Tax Collector.
Regards,
Legal Section
Office of the Treasurer & Tax Collector
City and County of San Francisco
P.O. Box 7426
San Francisco, CA 94120-7426
3
19th Annual SOR Report APPENDIX - Page 80 EXHIBIT B
EXHIBIT B
19th Annual SOR Report APPENDIX - Page 81 Office of the Treasurer & Tax Collector City and County of San Francisco Jos' Cisneros, Treasurer Legal Section
Via email: [email protected]
August 31, 2018
Lauren.Ward Payment Processing Services, LLC 237 Hanbury Road East, Suite 17-357 Chesapeake, Virginia 23322
Re: California Public Records Act Request
Dear Ms. Ward:
We are responding to your email of August 7, 2018 seeking, for 24 properties:
1. Any record(s) evidencing, reflecting, referring to, or related to the entity name (taxpayer) associated with each amount. 2. Any record(s) evidencing, reflecting, referring to, or related to the reason(s) a refund is not eligiole be issued. 3. All records evidencing, reflecting, referring to, or related to any/all refund(s) of each, including, but not limited to: (a) All external and internal requests to reissue, approved or denied (cover letter, email, etc.); (b) Claim forms; (c) Power of attorney; (d) Internal approvals or denials, docwnentation, computer comments, notes, etc.; (e) All communications between any employee or agent of your agency/entity and any other person or entity, including, but not limited to, all documents, -correspondences, letters, electronic mail, memorandums, computer comments, notes, etc.
We have conducted a diligent search and located records responsive to your request. They are enclosed.
We have withheld information exempt from public disclosure as confidential taxpayer filing information under the California Public Records Act, Government Code sections 6254(i)., Additionally, the records are subject to the official information privilege, which protects information that the City acquires in confidence, provided that the public interest would be better served by nondisclosure than disclosure (California Government Code section 6254(k); California Evidence Code section 1040).
Oq Hall- Room I-to • I Dr. Carlton B. Goodllu Alce • San Francisco. CA 9'4102-'1638 415-554-+492 1l!lephane • 4I5.S.54-5010 fax
19th Annual SOR Report APPENDIX - Page 82 As we continue to identify and review other potentially responsive records we will provide anything else that is responsive to your request.
Ifyou have any questions about the documents provided to you, please do not hesitate to contact me at (415) 554-4492.
Sincerely,
Tax~UCKLEY Collector Attorney
19th Annual SOR Report APPENDIX - Page 83 1~rp-of6~ ¥~~:'{10 ' - v A B c D E F J K L M N 0 REFUND# TYPE BLOCK LOT YEAR TOTAL REFUND REFUND PAYEE MAILING ADDRESS CHECK# PAYMENT DESCRIPTION PROCESSED DATE
1
2 1702640041 ES 3701 065 2017 $499,648.50 $0.00 / -\ / ' I 1702640042 ES 3701 065 2017 $499,648.50 $483,796.93 3701/065 FY17-18 ESCAPE TAX IN-P(°CE:;: #174252 CANCELLED PAYMENT 3 ~
19th Annual SOR Report APPENDIX - Page 84 Gt~ p,e.nf' 5 f µf I 1 ~ ~{ ~ A B c D E F J K L M N 0 1702590057 PT 3708 056 2011 $94,688.64 $94,688.64 KNICKERBOCKER 525 MARKET ST 00105255 7/11/2018 2513708/056 FY11·12112·13 SECURED PROPERTIES INC #730,SAN #124368/124717 OVERPAYMENT XXXlll FRANCISCO CA REFUND 14 94105 1702590058 PT 3708 056 2011 $94,688.64 $94,688.64 KNICKERBOCKER 525 MARKET ST 00105255 7/11/2018 2513708/056 FY11-12/12·13 SECURED PROPERTIES INC #730,5AN #124368/124717 OVERPAYMENT XXXlll FRANCISCO CA REFUND 15 94105 1702590059 PT 3708 056 2012 $91,168.70 $91,168.70 KNICKERBOCKER 525 MARKET ST 00105255 7111/2018 2513708/056 FY11·12/12·13 SECURED PROPERTIES INC #730,SAN #1243681124717 OVERPAYMENT XXXlll FRANCISCO CA REFUND 16 94105 1702590060 PT 3708 056 2012 $91,168.70 $91.168.70 KNICKERBOCKER 525 MARKET ST 00105255 7/11/2018 2513708/056 FY11-12/12-13 SECURED PROPERTIES INC #730,SAN #124368/124717 OVERPAYMENT REFUND XXXlll FRANCISCO CA 17 94105 1702640050 ES 3780 007 2017 $20,336.15 $20,336.15 888BRANNAN 730THIRDAVE,NEW 0010n1e 712312018 2513780/007 FY15 ESCAPE#176092 7880 YORK NY 10017 1&21NSTALLMENTS CANCELLED BILL 18 REFUND 1702640051 ES 3780 007 2017 $20,336.15 $20,336.15 888 BRANNAN 730 THIRD AVE, NEW 00107716 7/23/2018 25137801007 FY15 ESCAPE#176092 7880 YORK NY 10017 1&21NSTALLMENTS CANCELLED BILL 19 REFUND 1702410072 SC 1586 014 2017 $18,853.50 $18,909.53 4210 BALBOA 12115861014 FY17-18 IN-PZ? MANOR LLC • 121 SECURED#061627 1&21NSTALLMENT WARREN DRIVE, ROLL CORRECTION RFD SAN FRANCISCO 20 ;l'A 0A1l\1 1702410073 SC 1586 014 2017 $18,653.50 $18,909.53 4210 BALBOA 12115861014 FY17-18 IN~R7) MANOR LLC • 121 SECURED#0616271&21NSTALLMENT WARREN DRIVE, ROLL CORRECTION RFD SAN FRANCISCO 21 Ir.A 94131 1702890051 SC 3617 008 2017 $18,087.78 $18,457.98 THE VALENCIA HILL 1001 BRIDGEWAY 00105282 7/11/2018 2413617/008 FY17-18 LLC #538, SAUSALITO CA SECURED#122769 11NSTALLMENT ROLL CORRECTION REFUND 22 ~ 94965 - 1702890052 SC 3617 008 2017 18087.78 II/, J (/' 23 )
19th Annual SOR Report APPENDIX - Page 85 A B c D E F J K L M N 0 1702890084 SC 9999 058 2017 $14,653.75 $14,910.29 PACIFIC GAS & P080X7054 00105290 7111/2018 45199991058 FY17-18 ELECTRIC CO. MC:B12G, SAN SECURED#208053 1&21NSTALLMENTS ROLL CORRECTION RFD FRANCISCO CA 24 94120 1702890085 SC 9999 058 2017 $14,653.75 $14.763.35 PACIFIC GAS & PO BOX7054 00105290 711112018 4519999/058 FY17-18 ELECTRIC CO. MC:B12G, SAN SECURED#208053 1&21NSTALLMENTS FRANCISCO CA ROLL CORRECTION RFD 25 94120
19th Annual SOR Report APPENDIX - Page 86 CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO OFFICE OF THE CITY ATIORNEY
DENNIS J. HERRERA BRADLEY A. RUSSI City Attorney DEPUTY CITY ATIORNEY
Direct Dial: (415) 554-4645 Email: brad [email protected]
December 3, 2018
Sent via email F. Freibert ( )
Re: Petition to Supervisor of Records
Dear F. Freibert:
This letter responds to your petition to the Supervisor of Records sent via email on November 2, 2018. The petition concerns two requests for public records submitted to the San Francisco Police Department ("SFPD"). We conclude that SFPD properly withheld records responsive to these requests under Sections 6254(f) and (k) of the California Government Code.
October 9, 2018 Request
In the first request, dated October 9, 2018, you sought records regarding an arrest that occurred 57 years ago, on January 20, 1961, involving a suspect named John Samuel Bridges. You sought "the name and occupation of the arrestee, the individual's physical description including date of birth, color of eyes and hair, sex, height and weight, the time and date of arrest, the time and date of booking, the location of the arrest, the amount of bail set, the time and manner of release or the location where the individual was held, all charges the individual was held upon, as well as a brief description of the circumstances."
SFPD did not produce records in response to this request, stating that responsive records constituted criminal history records of Mr. Bridges and were protected from disclosure under Sections 11105, et seq. of the Penal Code as Criminal Offender Record Information ("CORI") and data derived from the California Law Enforcement Telecommunications System ("CLETS").
October 12, 2018 Request
In the second request, dated October 12, 2018, you sought the same records requested on October 9, 2018, but you included an argument contending that SFPD had improperly withheld records in response to the prior request. You argued that the information you seek must be disclosed under Section 6254(f)(l). SFPD again refused to disclose any documents or confirm or deny that any documents exist. SFPD stated that Section 6254(f)(l) requires only the release of information "contemporaneous" with the incident, citing County ofLos Angeles v. Superior Court (Kusar), 18 Cal. App. 4th 588 (1993). SFPD reiterated that any responsive information would be protected by Penal Code§§ 11105, et seq. as CORI or CLETS information.
Response to Petition
In the petition to the Supervisor of Records, you contend that SFPD improperly withheld the information you requested, because the court in Fredericks v. Superior Court, 233 Cal. App.
CITY HALL • 1 DR. CARLTON B. GOODLETT PLACE, CITY HALL ROOM 234 · SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94102-4682 RECEPTION: (415) 554-4700 · FACSIMILE: (415) 554-4699
n:\govern\as2018\0l 00505\01321866.doc
19th Annual SOR Report APPENDIX - Page 87 CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO OFFICE OF THE CITY ATIORNEY
Letter to F. Freibert December 3, 2018 Page2
4th 209 (2015), ruled that Section 6254(f)(l) requires disclosure in circumstances where the information requested is not "contemporaneous" with the underlying arrest. You argue that the court in Fredericks overruled the decision in Kusar, to the extent Kusar stands for the proposition that only contemporaneous information must be disclosed under Section 6254(f)(l).
Section 6254(f) provides an exemption from disclosure for records of "investigations" conducted by local police agencies. Nonetheless, Section 6254(f)(l), an exception to this general rule, requires a local police agency to disclose the following information pertaining to arrests, unless disclosure would endanger the safety of a person involved in an investigation or the successful completion of an investigation: The full name and occupation of every individual arrested by the agency, the individual's physical description including date of birth, color of eyes and hair, sex, height and weight, the time and date of arrest, the time and date of booking, the location of the arrest, the factual circumstances surrounding the arrest, the amount of bail set, the time and manner of release or the location where the individual is currently being held, and all charges the individual is being held upon, including any outstanding warrants from other jurisdictions and parole or probation holds.
Section 6254(f)(2) provides another exception to the exemption, not pertaining to arrests but instead requiring disclosure of certain information concerning the "time, substance, and location of all complaints or requests for assistance received" by the police agency.
In Kusar, the court addressed a request for all available information under subsections (f)(l) and (f)(2), as they were then worded, regarding arrests completed by two deputy sheriffs for a ten-year period. 18 Cal. App. 4th at 591. The county argued that it was only required to disclose information contemporaneous with the arrests. The court found these subsections ambiguous, reviewed their legislative history, and agreed with the county, concluding that subsections (f)(l) and (f)(2) require only disclosure of information contemporaneous to an incident. Id. at 599. The court based its rationale, in part, on language in subsection (f)(l) that required the disclosure of the "current" address of the arrestee. Id. at 595. But it also relied on legislative history indicating the Legislature's intent "to continue the common law tradition of contemporaneous disclosure of individualized information in order to prevent secret arrests and to mandate the continued disclosure of customary and basic law enforcement information to the press." Id. at 598.
In Fredericks, the requester sought information under subsection (f)(2) regarding "complaints and/or requests for assistance" for a six-month period. 233 Cal. App. 4th at 215-16. Following the court's decision in Kusar, the Legislature had amended Section 6254(f) to remove the term "current address" from subsections (f)(l) and (f)(2). The purpose of those amendments was to ease the burden on law enforcement agencies that were receiving an increasing number of requests for address information from marketing organizations. Id. at 232. The court in Fredericks examined the amended language of subsection (f)(2) which no longer included the word "current," and distinguished the request at issue from Kusar, which dealt primarily with a request for information under (f)(l). Id. at 233-34. The court concluded that for purposes of the amended subsection (f)(2), there was "no basis in the plain language of the statute to read into it any 60-day limitation on access to discloseable information." Id. at 234.
n:\govem\as201810100505101321866.doc
19th Annual SOR Report APPENDIX - Page 88 CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
Letter to F. Freibert December 3, 2018 Page3
Based on our review of Fredericks, we conclude that there continues to be a "contemporaneous" element to the subsection (f)(l) exception involving arrest information.
First, as noted above, the court in Fredericks based its holding regarding subsection (f)(2) on the Legislature's removal of the word "current" before "address" in a post-Kusar amendment of both subsections. But even with the removal of the word "current" from subsection (f)(l), there continues to be language in that subsection indicating that there must be a temporal connection between the arrest and the request for information. Gov't Code§ 6254(f)(l) ("the location where the individual is currently being held, and all charges the individual is being held upon") (emphasis added). Further, the request in Fredericks was not made under subsection (f)(l ), and the holding in Fredericks does not explicitly apply to subsection (f)(l ). It explicitly applies only to subsection (f)(2). Therefore Fredericks does not contradict Kusar's conclusion regarding subsection (f)(l)'s requirement of contemporaneity. And even if there were a conflict between these opinions, Fredericks could not overrule Kusar, as you argue in your petition, because the Fredericks court was not superior in authority to the Kusar court. Both decisions are Court of Appeal decisions; only a court of superior jurisdiction has authority to overrule Kusar. Garza v. Asbestos Corp., Ltd., 161 Cal. App. 4th 651, 659 n.5 (2008).
Second, as noted in the Kusar opinion, the legislative history of this exception indicates an intent to formalize a common law tradition of police departments providing arrest information regarding recent arrests to the press, in part to prevent the police from making secret arrests. The legislative history for the amendments to subsection (f)(l) to remove the word "current" indicates only that the Legislature wanted to ease the burden on police departments that were being inundated with requests from marketing companies for address information. If the current address of arrestees was no longer available, the barrage of records requests that were being made to advance such marketing schemes directed at arrestees would come to a virtual halt. There is no indication that the Legislature intended the amendments to overrule Kusar or to have any effect other than reducing the number of information requests to departments. Thus, the Legislature's original intent in enacting the subsection (f)(l) exception - to provide a check against police making secret arrests - persists, and it supports the conclusion that the arrest information sought by a requestor must be close in time to the arrest.
Third, the disclosure requirement of subsection (f)(l) serves a different purpose and raises different concerns than the disclosure requirement of subsection (f)(2). Subsection (f)(l) calls for the disclosure of identifying information for the arrests of specific individuals, raising significant privacy concerns for arrestees and implicating other statutory protections for criminal offender record information. The Legislature chose to balance these concerns by requiring disclosure only for contemporaneous arrests, to memorialize in statute an ongoing practice of police departments that serves a compelling transparency purpose - providing the check against secret arrests. Subsection (f)(2), on the other hand, involves more general information about calls for service and complaints that may not disclose personal information about arrestees and that raises less of a concern for the privacy of arrestees. While the two exceptions were discussed together in Kusar, the court's conclusion focused almost entirely on subsection (f)(l). The removal of the term "current" from subsection (f)(2) should not require that these two exceptions be construed together or construed identically, and the court in Fredericks did not make such an effort. This further supports the conclusion that the holding regarding the contemporaneity of the information sought under subsection (f)(2) in Fredericks-that subsection (f)(2) is not limited in scope to contemporaneous information- does not extend to subsection (f)(l ), which is limited in scope to contemporaneous information.
n:\govem\as2018\0100505101321866,doc
19th Annual SOR Report APPENDIX - Page 89 CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
Letter to F. Freibert December 3, 2018 Page4
Finally, while San Francisco Administrative Code Section 67.24(d) generally requires disclosure of arrest information when no prosecution will be sought or the statute of limitations has expired, where disclosure would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy - as it would here due to the many years that have passed since the arrest - the information may be withheld if the public interest in non-disclosure outweighs the public interest in disclosure. S.F. Admin. Code§ 67.24(d)(2).
Your request calls for information that is not contemporaneous with the arrest. Indeed, you are seeking information about an arrest that occurred more than 50 years ago. Thus, we conclude that SFPD properly determined that Section 6254(f)(l) does not require disclosure. SFPD properly withheld the information under Government Code Section 6254(f) as a record of a local law enforcement investigation. Further, SFPD properly withheld the information under Government Code Section 6254(k), which provides an exemption for records "the disclosure of which is exempted by or prohibited pursuant to ... state law." The information you requested is protected by Penal Code §§ 11105 et seq. as CORI or CLETS information. And Section 67.24(d) of the Administrative Code does not require disclosure due to the privacy interests involved.
For the reasons stated above, we consider your petition closed.
Very truly yours,
DENNIS J. HERRERA City Attorney
Bradley~ A. Russi Deputy City Attorney
n:\govern\as201810100505101321866,doc
19th Annual SOR Report APPENDIX - Page 90 Russi, Brad (CAn
From: Fi Fr < > Sent: Friday, November 02, 2018 12:22 PM To: Supervisor Records Subject: Re: Request to Review a CPRA Withholding of Records Attachments: Petition to Supervisor of Records 10.24.2018.pdf
Dear Mr. Russi,
Please find the explanation, copies of my requests, and the SFPD's response attached in a single pdf. If you would like a different format please let me know.
Respectfully, F. Freibert On Fri, Nov 2, 2018 at 11:36 AM Supervisor Records
2 19th Annual SOR Report APPENDIX - Page 92 Office of the City Attorney Attention: Supervisor of Records City Hall, Room 234 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place San Francisco, CA 94102 citvattornev(c],sfcitvattv .onz
Dear Supervisor of Records,
This is a petition for a review of the SFPD' s response to my recent records request (attached on pages 3 and after). My request Reference #P005874-101218 (page 3) was rejected on October 18, 2018 by the SFPD due to the following determination:
"SFPD is only obligated to release records under 6254(±)(1) that are contemporaneous with the incident. County ofLos Angeles v. Superior Court (Kusar) (1993) 18 Cal.App.4th 588 (1993) only requires the Department to provide information relating to current or "contemporaneous" police activity." -- quote from rejection letter dated October 18, 2018.
That reasoning cites an outdated case from 1993 that has since been overturned by Fredericks v. Superior Court, 233 Cal.App.4th 209 (2015). Fredericks rules that the above Kusar case is outdated as it "deals with a former version of the statute" (531 ). Furthermore, as Judge Huffman stated in this 2015 decision regarding the previous "contemporaneous" argument:
"We conclude the trial court's narrow construction of the Department's disclosure duties under the CPRA is incorrect both as to the substantive and temporal limits placed upon them. Section 6254, subdivision (f)(2) must be read according to its plain terms, and these terms do not include an express time limitation on production of only "contemporaneous" or "current" records." (531)
Background: I originally submitted a records request (#P005835-100918 copy on page 4) for information on an incident involving an individual. The SFPD's original response (page 7-8) to that request construed the request as a "criminal history/background check" request that was improperly submitted by me as a CPRA request.
Because of that determination, I submitted a second request (#P005874-101218 copy on page 3) to clarify that I only wanted information on a single incident and single individual mandated by the CPRA. I explained in clear terms that I was "neither asking for information compiled by the Attorney General, nor am I asking for a history or summary of incidents involving an individual" as construed by the response to my first request.
What I am now requesting with this petition to the Supervisor of Records: I think that the responses to my requests are obstructing the release of records that should be publicly available under§§ 6250. The first response misconstrued my request as a
1
19th Annual SOR Report APPENDIX - Page 93 background check request (10/10/2018). The second response (10/18/2018) cited an outdated court decision to deny the release of requested documents.
I ask that the City Attorney's office direct the SFPD to please release records responsive to my request as mandated by California Government Code.§§ 6250. In the recent past I have submitted a similar records request to another police department and they responded affirmatively to that request. I simply ask that the SFPD do the same as mandated by§§ 6250.
On page 3 and after I have provided copies of my requests and the responses to my requests.
If I can provide any further information please feel free to contact me:
Respectfully, F. Freibert
2
19th Annual SOR Report APPENDIX - Page 94 Copy of My Original Request on October 12. 2018, Ref.# P005874-101218 (bold to emphasize information I requested)
This is a California Public Records Act request pursuant to California Government Code. §§ 6250 et seq., for information on one specific incident involving one specific individual described below.
Under California Government Code. §§ 6250, section (f) states that upon public requests for information on an incident: "state and local law enforcement agencies shall disclose the names and addresses of persons involved in, or witnesses other than confidential informants to, the incident."
Section (f) further states: "state and local law enforcement agencies shall make public the following information, except to the extent that disclosure of a particular item of information would endanger the safety of a person involved in an investigation or would endanger the successful completion of the investigation or a related investigation: (1) The full name and occupation of every individual arrested by the agency, the individual's physical description including date of birth, color of eyes and hair, sex, height and weight, the time and date of arrest, the time and date of booking, the location of the arrest, the factual circumstances surrounding the arrest, the amount of bail set, the time and manner of release or the location where the individual is currently being held, and all charges the individual is being held upon, including any outstanding warrants from other jurisdictions and parole or probation holds."
I am requesting all information, mandated to be publicly disclosed under California Government Code. §§ 6250 (f)(1 ), on the incident of the arrest of John Samuel Bridges, age 24, on the date of January 20, 1961. I only want the information that is mandated to be publicly disclosed in§§ 6250 (f)(1) and nothing else.
By placing the above individual's name within the quoted text, this means that I want "The full name and occupation of [John Samuel Bridges] arrested by the agency, the individual's physical description including date of birth, color of eyes and hair, sex, height and weight, the time and date of arrest, the time and date of booking, the location of the arrest, the factual circumstances surrounding the arrest,. the amount of bail set, the time and manner of release or the location where the individual is currently being held, and all charges the individual is being held upon, including any outstanding warrants from other jurisdictions and parole or probation holds."
This request should not be misconstrued as a "criminal history" information request because as defined in Penal Code§ 11105 "criminal history information" is defined as "the master record of information compiled by the Attorney General pertaining to the identification and criminal history of a person, such as name, date of birth, physical description, fingerprints, photographs, dates of arrests, arresting agencies and booking numbers, charges, dispositions, sentencing information, and similar data about the person."
I am neither asking for information compiled by the Attorney General, nor am I asking for a history or summary of incidents involving an individual. Therefore Penal Code § 11105 does not apply to my request. I am only asking for the information required to be publicly disclosed upon request under California Government Code.§§ 6250.
Police Officer(s) Involved in Incident: Jack Webb and Jim Hurley
3
19th Annual SOR Report APPENDIX - Page 95 Copy of My Original Request on October 9, 2018, Ref.# P005835-100918
This is a public records request for information on an SFPD arrest on January 20, 1961. This arrest was reported in the San Francisco Chronicle on January 21, 1961. The article states that "the suspect is John Samuel Bridges, 24, who refused to give an address." Due to the nature of that statement it is possible the arrestee used an alias. Should records be located, can you please provide: the name and occupation of the arrestee, the individual's physical description including date of birth, color of eyes and hair, sex, height and weight, the tinie and date of arrest, the time and date of booking, the location of the arrest, the amount of bail set, the time and manner of release or the location where the individual was held, all charges the individual was held upon, as well as a brief description of the circumstances.
4
19th Annual SOR Report APPENDIX - Page 96 CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO POLICE DEPARTMENT HEADQUARTERS 1245 3RD Street San Francisco, California 94158 LONDON N. BREED WILLIAM SCOTT MAYOR CHIEF OF POLICE
October 18, 2018
F Freibert
RE: Public Records Request, dated October 12, 2018, Reference# P005874-101218
Dear F Freibert:
This request is a follow up to your request, Reference #P005835-100918. On October 10, 2018, the SFPD declined to provide responsive records, citing Penal Code §11105 et. seq. Both CORI data (personal identifiable criminal history) and CLETS data (California Law Enforcement Telecommunications Systems) are categories protected from public disclosure. SFPD referred you to the ID Bureau for a clearance report.
The San Francisco Police Department (SFPD) received your Public Records Act request, Reference #P005874-101218, dated October 12, 2018, on October 12, 2018.
You requested, "This is a California Public Records Act request pursuant to California Government Code.§§ 6250 et seq.Jar information on one specific incident involving one specific individual described below. Under California Government Code.§§ 6250, section(/) states that upon public requests/or information on an incident: "state and local law enforcement agencies shall disclose the names and addresses ofpersons involved in, or witnesses other than confidential informants to, the incident." Section (/)further states: "state and local law enforcement agencies shall make public the following information, except to the extent that disclosw·e ofa particular item of information would endanger the safety ofa person involved in an investigation or would endanger the successful completion ofthe investigation or a related investigation: (1) The full name and occupation ofevery individual arrested by the agency, the individual's physical description including date ofbirth, color ofeyes and hair, sex, height and weight, the time and date of arrest, the time and date ofbooking, the location ofthe arrest, the factual circumstances surrounding the arrest, the amount of bail set, the time and manner ofrelease or the location where the individual is currently being held, and all charges the individual is being held upon, including any outstanding warrants from other jurisdictions and parole or probation holds." I am requesting all information, mandated to be publicly disclosed under California Government Code. § § 6250 (/)(1), on the incident ofthe arrest ofJohn Samuel Bridges, age 24, on the date ofJanuary 20, 1961. I only want the information that is mandated to be publiczY disclosed in§§ 6250 (f)(l) and nothing else. By placing the above individual's nan1e within the quoted text, this means that I want "The full name and occupation of[John Samuel Bridges] arrested by the agency, the individual's physical description including date ofbirth, color ofeyes and hair, sex, height and weight, the time and date ofarrest, the time and date of booking, the location ofthe arrest, the factual circumstances surrounding the arrest, the amount ofbail set, the time and manner ofrelease or the location where the individual is currently being held, and all charges the individual is being held upon, including any outstanding warrants from other jurisdictions and parole or probation holds. " This request should not be misconstrued as a "criminal history" information request because as defined in Penal Code§ 11105 "criminal history information" is defined as "the master record of information compiled by the Attorney General pertaining to the identification and criminal history ofa person, such as name, date ofbirth, physical description,
19th Annual SOR Report APPENDIX - Page 97 fingerprints, photographs, dates ofarrests, arresting agencies and booking nwnbers, charges, dispositions, sentencing information, and similar data about the person." I am neither asking/or information compiled by the Attorney General, nor am I asking for a history or summary ofincidents involving an individual. Therefore Penal Code § 11105 does not apply to my request. I am only asking for the information required to be publicly disclosed upon request under California Government Code. §§ 6250."
SFPD is only obligated to release records under 6254(f)(l) that are contemporaneous with the incident. County ofLos Angeles v. Superior Court (Kusar) (1993) 18 Cal.App.4th 588 (1993) only requires the Department to provide information relating to current or "contemporaneous" police activity. The information that is not "contemporaneous" and contained in Crime Data Warehouse contains both CORI data (personal identifiable criminal history) and CLETS data (California Law Enforcement Telecoll,lmunications Systems) data. Both of these categories of data are protected from public disclosure under Government Code§ 6254(f) and Penal Code§ 11105 et. seq.
The SFPD cannot confirm or deny the existence of such record as to do so would reveal criminal history. SFPD reaffirms its decision not to disclose responsive records, if any, pursuant to Cal. Govt. Code § 6254(f).
If you have any questions, please contact Kathleen Langley at 415-83 7-7181.
Sincerely,
Sgt. Vict'4V~a sumvan #571 f"o~ Lieutenant Kathryn Waaland Officer in Charge Legal DivisiOn
19th Annual SOR Report APPENDIX - Page 98 CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO POLICE DEPARTMENT HEADQUARTERS 1245 3RD Street San Francisco, California 94158 LONDON N. BREED WILLIAM SCOTT MAYOR CHIEF OF POLICE
October 10, 2018
F Freibert CA
RE: Public Records Request/Immediate Disclosure Request, dated October 09, 2018, Reference# P005835-100918
Dear F Freibert:
The San Francisco Police Department (SFPD) received your Public Records Act request, dated October 09, 2018, on October 10, 2018.
You requested, "This is a public records request for information on an SFPD arrest on January 20, 1961. This arrest was reported in the San Francisco Chronicle on January 21, 1961. The article states that "the suspect is John Samuel Bridges, 24, who refused to give an address." Due to the nature ofthat statement it is possible the arrestee used an alias. Should records be located, can you please provide: the name and occupation ofthe arrestee, the individual's physical description including date ofbirth, color ofeyes and hair, sex, height and weight, the time and date ofarrest, the time and date of booking, the location ofthe arrest, the amount ofbail set, the time and manner ofrelease or the location where the individual was held, all charges the individual was held upon, as well as a briefdescription ofthe circumstances."
The SFPD interprets your request for criminal history records on the above-referenced individual. That information is protected from public disclosure pursuant to Penal Code§ 11105 et. seq. Both CORI data (personal identifiable criminal history) and CLETS data (California Law Enforcement Telecommunications Systems) are categories protected from public disclosure.
It may be that you are seeking information that can be obtained by a Clearance Letter. Please follow the instructions provided below to obtain a Clearance Letter (Clearance Letter for San Francisco County Only). Sanfranciscopolice.org/obtain-clearance-letter
There are 2 ways to obtain a SFPD Clearance Report: 1. In person with valid identification during business hours (Monday - Friday, excluding holidays; 8 a.m. - 5p.m.) at the San Francisco Police Department ID Section 850 Bryant St., Room 475 San Francisco, CA 94103
2. By mail with a notarized request.
19th Annual SOR Report APPENDIX - Page 99 Instructions for Mail Request: All mail requests for a criminal history/background check must be notarized. Ifthe results of this check are to be released to a third party, a statement to that effect shall be included in the notarized document. It must give the person's legal name, date of birth, and include the number from a valid form of identification such as a driver's license. It should state that you give permission to release the information that you requested to the individual.
Your request must also include all of the following information:
• Full legal name and all other names you have used. • Your correct date of birth and any other D.O.B. you have used. • Your coITect social security number and any others that you may have used. • Your current driver's license or state ID card number.
Your request containing all of the above information must be sent along with a self-addressed, stamped envelope to the following address:
San Francisco Police Department ID Section 850 Bryant St., Room 475 San Francisco, CA 94103 Fee: None
For questions, please call 415-553-1415.
Sincerely,
Lt. Katt:Waaland I Lieutenant Kathryn Waaland Officer in Charge Legal Division
19th Annual SOR Report APPENDIX - Page 100 CITY AND COUNlY OF SAN FRANCISCO OFFICE OF THE CllY ATTORNEY DENNIS J. HERRERA BURKE. DELVENTHAL City Attorney DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY
Direct Dlal: (415) 554-4650 Email: [email protected]
~mber21,2018
Sent via email Michael Petrelli ( )
Re: Petition to Supervisor of Records
Dear Mr. Petrelis: This. letter responds to your petition to the Supervisor of Records sent via email on December 10, 2018., The petition con~ems your request dated Aµ.gust 6, 2018 for Mayor London Bref'.t'J's c~endar entrie5 for the period cov~ring May l, ZOl~ to JO.ly 11, 2018, when sti.e was a member of the Board of Supervisors. The Boar<:\ of Supervisors Clerk's Office produced documents responsive to your request on August 6 and 17. Mayor Breed's office infonns us that during the relevant time ~od the calendar was s.tored on a persqrial acco1;1Ilt c;>utside the City's computer network. A staff member who worked mMayor Breed's ~liperv1sonal office searched for records responsive· to your request and redacted a number of calen(J.ar entries. You first brought your concern to tlie Sunshine Ordinance Task Force ("SOTF'') (File #18066); your SO'fF complaint is contained within your petition to the Supervisor of R~cords and constitutes the ·substance of your petition. You contend that Mayor "Breed has heavily and unnecessarily redacted the cal.endar on j:J:umy days." We conclude thE!t Mayor Breed properJy redacted calendar entries that do not reflect City business, because Section 67 .29-5 of the Sunshirie Ordinance (S.F. Ad.min. Code§ 67.29-5) does not require their disclosure and because the entries do not · constitute puplic records.
Analvsis and Determination Seetion 67 .29-5 of the Sunshine Ordinance requires members of the Board of Supervisors, ainong other o:fijcial~, to maintain a daily calendar of meetings or events the SQpe,:visor. attends. But the calendar need not record "purely personal or social evepts at which no C:ity business is dis~ussed and that 40 not take place at City Offices or at the offices or residences of people who do substantial business with or are othertvise substantially financially affected by actions of the City." The foregoing seqteiice applies to all officials covered by the . calendar requirement. In addition, for Supervisors, the Sunshine Ordinance states that the calendar requirement does not apply to "meetings or events where City business is disct.i$sed only incidentally; to unplanned, ca.Sual conversations with residents; to campaign-related meetings, events, and appearances; or to meetings or events where .c:Ul a!tendees are employees or officers in the official's City department, which ~or members of the Board of Supervisors shall. mean that all attendees are members ofthe Board of Supervisors, legislative aides, or employees of the Office of the Clerk of the Board" S.F. Admin. Code§ 67.29-S(e). These exceptions to the Sunshine Ordinance's calendar requirements are consistent with the Public Records Act, which defines a "public record" to be a "writing containing information relating to the conduct ofthe public's business . ..." Cal. Gov't Code§ 6252(e) (emphasis
Cnv HALL • 1 DR. CARLTON B. GOODLETT PLACE, Cnv HAu. ROOM 234 • SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94102-4682 REcEPTION: (415) 554-4700 • FACSIMILE: (415) 554-4699
n:\govern\as2018\0100505\01326416.doc
19th Annual SOR Report APPENDIX - Page 101 CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
Letter to M. Petrelis December 21, 2018 Page2
added). If a writing does not relate to public business, it is not a public record subject to disclosure under the Public Records Act.
. A calendar kept by a City official - inclu_ding the calendar required to be kept by a member of the Board of Supervisors under Section 67,29-5 - will have entriys th1:1t relate to the official's duties but may also include entries th.at qo 11ot relate to official busin~ss, such as medical appointments, family events, meals with friends, etc. For busy elected officiClls and for many City employees, maintaining separate caiendars for personal events and for City business is impractical and couM cause major scheduling problems. l{eeping an integrated calendar thus serves a significant public purpose. But maintaining an integrated calendar does not change the nature of the calendar entries tµemselves; personal entries do not become public records because they appear on the same calendar as an official's public appointments~ The drafters of Sections 67.29-S(a) and (e) recognized this by explicitly laying out certain types of things that do not m~ed to appear on a Supervisor's calendar such as campaign events, person~ events, and meetings that do not involve City business in general.
During the time period in question, Mayor Breed maintained an integrated calendar on a private account stored outside the City computer system. In City of San Jose v, Superior Court, 2 Cal.5th 608, 628 (2017), the California Supreme Court found that a public agency satisfied its obligati,on to search for and disclose public records stored on an employee's private account where the employee provides a sufficient factual basis for the agency to dete_tmine that withheld records do not relate to public business. Mayor Breed's staffer who performed the redactions confirmed that the redacted calendar entries reflect non-City.business, such as campaign meetings and events and personal appointments. In this situation, where an official has provided assurances that certain of the records stored on a private accot;II1t outside the City system relate only to non-City business, the City may rely on the good faith statement of the official that the information redacted is not a public record rather than dig into the official's non-public information. See id.
Because Section 67.29-5 does not require dis.closure of meetings and appointments unrelated to City business and because calendar entries that do not relate to the "conduct of the public's business" are not public records, Mayor Breed properly redacted the calendar entries at issue.
For the reasons stated above, we consider your petition closed.
Very truly yours,
DENNIS J. HERRERA City Attorney ~-~ilim Deputy City Attorney
n:\govem\as2018\0100505\01326416.doc
19th Annual SOR Report APPENDIX - Page 102 Russi, Brad (CAn
From: Gilbertson, Shayne (CAD Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2018 6:16 PM To: ' '; Ng, Wilson (BOS) Cc: CityAttorney; Heckel, Hank (MYR); SOTF, (BOS) Subject: RE: SOTF - Notice of Hearing - Sunshine Ordinance Task Force: December 5, 2018, 4:00 p.m. (File No. 18066)
Good evening, Mr. Petrelis and Mr. Heckel.
Please be advised that this matter has been referred to the Supervisor of Records.
Best regards,
SHAYNE M GILBERTSON Paralegal Office of City Attorney Dennis Herrera (415) 554-4685 Direct www .sfcityattorney.org Find us on: Facebook Twitter lnstagram
From: < > Sent: Monday, December 10, 2018 1:55 PM To: Ng, Wilson (BOS)
Wilson,
There was no need for all this legalese to clutter up the process, especially after I requested you reply in layman's terms. Please try working me and keeping things simple.
Anyone, please weigh in, briefly, as to whether the City Attorney, copied here, should reply to Wilson's response, or, does the CA need me to make a formal request for an opinion. Thanks.
Michael
-----Original Message---- From: Ng, Wilson (BOS) To: Cc: Cityattorney ; Heckel, Hank (MYR) ; SOTF, (BOS) Sent: Mon, Dec 10, 2018 8:33 am Subject: RE: SOTF - Notice of Hearing - Sunshine Ordinance Task Force: December 5, 2018, 4:00 p.m. (File No. 18066)
Dear Mr. Petrelis, Thank you for the follow-up inquiry. As I presented on behalf of the Office of the Clerk of the Board during the December 5, 2018 Sunshine Ordinance Task Force hearing (File No. 18066), our office comprehensively provided you with former-Supervisor London Breed's 1 19th Annual SOR Report APPENDIX - Page 103 calendars for May 1, 2018 - July 11, 2018. In addition to the calendar attachments we provided to you on August 6, 2018 and August 17, 2018, we advised that you also reference the body of the communications which provides supporting information and notes of calendar details. I have provided them again attached, just for reference. Just to reiterate, records containing personal information, privileged information, or personnel matters may be redacted or withheld pursuant to CA Government Code 6254; Evidence Code sec. 952; Evidence Code sec. 954; Code of Civil Procedure 2018.030; Government Code 6254(c), Art. I, sec. 1; CA Const., Evidence Code sec. 1041; Evidence Code sec. 1040; Government Code sec. 6254(k); and/or Government Code sec. 6276.32. Furthermore, as the Mayor's office response to this complaint stated, Prop G calendar requirements specifically exclude matters that do not relate to the functioning of City business, per Admin Code 67.29-5(e). To confirm, redactions were applied in accordance with the cited authorities by former-Supervisor Breed's staff and the Office of the City Attorney, and was not reviewed nor applied by the Office of the Clerk of the Board - therefore, our office should not be a party to this complaint. However, we will be glad to facilitate the process to help you seek clarification and resolution. In accordance with the process outlined in Admin Code Sec. 67.21 (d), if you believe that certain redactions are disclosable, then you may petition the Supervisor of Records for a determination whether the redacted information is public. The Supervisor of Records is defined by Admin Code Sec. 67.20 as the City Attorney. If a petition is denied or not acted on by the Supervisor of Records, then you may further petition the Task Force for their determination whether the record requested is public. As per Admin Code Sec. 67.21 (d), Process for Gaining Access to Public Records; Administrative Appeals, (d) If the custodian refuses, fails to comply, or incompletely complies with a request described in (b), the person making the request may petition the supervisor of records for a determination whether the record requested is public. The supervisor of records shall inform the petitioner, as soon as possible and within 1O days, of its determination whether the record requested, or any part of the record requested, is public. Where requested by the petition, and where otherwise desirable, this determination shall be in writing. Upon the determination by the supervisor of records that the record is public, the supervisor of records shall immediately order the custodian of the public record to comply with the person's request. If the custodian refuses or fails to comply with any such order within 5 days, the supervisor of records shall notify the district attorney or the attorney general who shall take whatever measures she or he deems necessary and appropriate to insure compliance with the provisions of this ordinance. By copy of this email, I am referring your inquiry regarding the redactions on former-Supervisor Breed's calendars to the attention of the Office of the City Attorney ([email protected]). I am also moving member Josh Wolf to bee, and copying the full Sunshine Ordinance Task Force on this referral. Please feel free to let me know if our office can be of further assistance. Sincerely,
Wilson L. Ng Records and Project Manager San Francisco Board of Supervisors
1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, Room 244 San Francisco, CA 94102 Phone: ( 415) 554-7725 Web: www.sfbos.org
.tr,:iClick• here to complete a Board of Supervisors Customer Service Satisfaction form
Disclosures: Personal information that is provided in communications to the Clerk of 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: Sent: Sunday, December 9, 2018 11 :07 PM To: Ng, Wilson (BOS); Heckel, Hank (MYR); Subject: Re: SOTF - Notice of Hearing - Sunshine Ordinance Task Force: December 5, 2018, 4:00 p.m. This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
Hi Wilson and Hank,
2 19th Annual SOR Report APPENDIX - Page 104 Please explain in layman's terms what step it is I am requesting from the City Attorney regarding London Breed's supervisorial calendar, provided to the Clerk and passed along to me, that was discussed at the meeting last week. I am copying SOTF member Josh Wolf. Gimme a shout by the close of business on Monday. Thanks. Michael
-----Original Message----- From: Ng, Wilson (BOS)
Dear Mr. Petrelis, I am in receipt of this SOTF hearing notice, and understand that complaint no. 18066 was filed by you some time ago. As a friendly reminder, all responsive records obtained from former-Supervisor Breed's office was provided by our office (Office of the Clerk of the Board) to you on August 6, 2018 and August 17, 2018, as we assisted you with facilitating an inquiry to former-Supervisor Breed's staff. Provided attached are the communications and records provided responsive to your request. We have confirmed that we do not have any additional records responsive to your request, and have provided you with everything in our possession - for calendar items pertaining to former-Supervisor Breed's term as Acting Mayor and Mayor, we had kindly advised that you contact the Mayor's office ([email protected]) for further inquiry. All redactions were applied in accordance with the cited authorities by former-Supervisor Breed's staff and the City Attorney's office; they were not reviewed nor applied by the Office of the Clerk of the Board. Our office has a chartered duty to manage the affairs of the full Board as a body, and is not the custodian of individual Board member calendars or schedules - that is retained by the member. In this instance, our office merely helped facilitate your request to inquire with former-Supervisor Breed's legislative staff to provide you with the records sought. Respectfully, we believe our office is not the appropriate respondent addressed in your complaint, and the complaint is without merit as we provided you with all responsive records received by our office. I hope this provides the clarification that you seek, and kindly request that you withdraw or mediate this complaint. Sincerely,
Wilson L. Ng Records and Project Manager San Francisco Board of Supervisors
1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, Room 244 San Francisco, CA 94102 Phone: ( 415) 554-7725 Web: www.sfbos.org il(e;iClick• here to complete a Board of Supervisors Customer Service Satisfaction form
Disclosures: Personal information that is provided in communications to the Clerk of 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: SOTF, (BOS) Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2018 2:01 PM To: Denta Tadesse < >; Mazzola, Lori (ADM)
3 19th Annual SOR Report APPENDIX - Page 105 Cc: Ng, Wilson (BOS)
.il''.;Click• here to complete a Board of Supervisors Customer Service Satisfaction form. The Legislative Research Center 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. Dear Mr. Petrelis, Thank you for your inquiry. On behalf of the Office of the Clerk of the Board, I am responding to your request of August 6, 2018 for the calendar of former supervisor London Breed from May 1 to July 11, 2018. We previously provided the requested information for May 1 to June 18, 2018. Please see attached a copy of former Supervisor Breed's calendar
4 19th Annual SOR Report APPENDIX - Page 106 entries from June 19 to July 11, 2018. Provided below are also supporting notes pertaining to the attached calendar items, per former-Supervisor Breed's staff. •June 19th meeting with Ben Rosenfield and Kelly Kirkpatrick attendees also included Andrea Bruss (Legislative Aide) and Mawuli Tugbenyoh (Legislative Aide) •Topic for the June 19th meeting with Mayor Farrell was check-in • JL!ne 19th meeting with Angela Calvillo (Clerk of the Board) and Jon Givner (Deputy City Attorney) attendees also included Andrea Bruss (Legislative Aide) •GAO is an abbreviation for the Government Audit and Oversight Committee of the Board of Supervisors •Topic for the June 20th meeting with Supervisor Cohen was the annual budget • GGB is an abbreviation for the Golden Gate Bridge Board •Topic for the June 25th call with Mayor Sylvester Turner was a congratulatory/introductory call •Attendees at the June 25th meeting with Nadia Sesay (Executive Director of the Office of Community Investment and Infrastructure) also included Andrea Bruss (Legislative Aide) •TA is an abbreviation for San Francisco County Transportation Authority •June 25th meeting with Angela Calvillo (Clerk of the Board) and Jon Givner (Deputy City Attorney) attendees also included Andrea Bruss (Legislative Aide) •Topic for the June 27th meeting with Mayor Farrell was check-in •Topic for the July 5th meeting with Supervisor Yee was child care and education •Attendees for the July 10th Inauguration Briefing included: Andrea Bruss (Legislative Aide), Naomi Kelly (City Administrator), Martha Cohen (Mayors Office), Matthew Goudeau (Office of Protocol), Marjan Philhour (Advisor) As a general disclaimer, please note that records containing personal information, privileged information, or personnel matters may be redacted or withheld pursuant to CA Government Code 6254; Evidence Code sec. 952; Evidence Code sec. 954; Code of Civil Procedure 2018.030; Government Code 6254(c), Art. I, sec. 1; CA Const., Evidence Code sec. 1041; Evidence Code sec. 1040; Government Code sec. 6254(k); and/or Government Code sec. 6276.32. Regards, Peggy Nevin Operations Deputy Director Board of Supervisors 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, City Hall, Room 244 San Francisco, CA 94102-4689 Phone: (415) 554-7722 I Fax: (415) 554-5163 [email protected]
Please complete a Board of Supervisors Customer Service Satisfaction form by clicking here. The Legislative Research Center 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: Mchugh, Eileen (BOS) Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2018 5:44 PM To: Cc: Calvillo, Angela (BOS)
5 19th Annual SOR Report APPENDIX - Page 107 Eileen McHugh Executive Assistant Board of Supervisors 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, City Hall, Room 244 San Francisco, CA 94102-4689 Phone: (415) 554-7703 I Fax: (415) 554-5163 eileen.e.mchugh@sfgov .orgl www .sfbos.org
Please complete a Board of Supervisors Customer Service Satisfaction form by clicking here. The Legislative Research Center 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: [mailto: ] Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2018 12:37 PM To: Mchugh, Eileen (BOS)
Hello Eileen, I have received the heavily redacted responsive public records. Thanks for getting them to me so quickly. I am, however, concerned that you didn't provide me with Sup. Breed's calendar from June 19 through July 11, as I had requested. When can I expect her calendar for that time period? Please lemme know today. Best, Michael
-----Original Message----- From: Mchugh, Eileen (BOS) (BOS)
Dear Mr. Petrelis, Thank you for your inquiry. On behalf of the Office of the Clerk of the Board, I am confirming receipt of your request. As you are aware, former-Supervisor London Breed was sworn in as Mayor on July 11, 2018. In response to your request, please see attached for a copy of former Supervisor Breed's calendar entries from May 1 through June 18, which our office received per a past inquiry to former Supervisor Breed's staff, prior to her appointment as Mayor. Provided below are also supporting notes pertaining to the attached calendar items, per former-Supervisor Breed's staff. • Attendees for the May 1, 2018 meeting with Angela Calvillo and Jon Givner include: Angela Calvillo (Clerk), Jon Givner (City Attorney), Andrea Bruss (Legislative Aide) • Attendees for the May 7, 2018 meeting with Matthew Freemen include Matthew Freeman (Undersheriff from Sheriffs Department) Topic: Garden Project/Program
6 19th Annual SOR Report APPENDIX - Page 108 • Attendees for the May 7, 2018 meeting with Sheriff Hennessy include Sheriff Hennessey, Topic: Hall of Justice rebuild • Attendees for the May 7, 2018 meeting with Sevrin Campbell include: Severing Campbell (Budget and Legislative Analyst) and Andrea Bruss (Legislative Aide) topic was briefing on budget and finance committee items at the board that week. • Attendees for the May 8, 2018 meeting with Angela Calvillo and Jon Givner include: Angela Calvillo (Clerk), Jon Givner (City Attorney), Andrea Bruss (Legislative Aide) • Attendees for the May 15, 2018 meeting with Angela Calvillo and Jon Givner include: Angela Calvillo (Clerk), Jon Givner (City Attorney), Andrea Bruss (Legislative Aide) • Attendees for the May 15, 2018 meeting with Severin Campbell include: Dan Goucher (Budget and Legislative Analyst) and Andrea Bruss (Legislative Aide) topic was briefing on budget and finance committee items at the board that week. • Attendees for the May 16, 2018 meeting with Tyra Fennell include: Tyra Fennell (arts and community leader) topic: Blue Bridge Project • Attendees for the May 16, 2018 Haight Street Fair Meeting include: Robert Leon (executive director of Haight Ashbury Street Fair), Michael Xavier (Haight Street Merchant), Leon Jones (Haight St Merchant), Samantha Roxas (Legislative Aide) Topic: Haight Street Fair and street closures • Attendees for the May 17, 2018 meeting regarding 531 Bryant Street include Susan Taymor Sagy (Managing Director, Urban Land Development) Mark Young (Asset Management, Urban Land Development) and Andrea Bruss (Legislative Aide) • Attendees for the May 22, 2018 meeting with Carmen Chu included Carmen Chu (Assessor-Recorder), Andrea Bruss (Legislative Aide) and Rachel Cukierman (Deputy Director Assessor-Recorder's Office) • Attendees for the May 22, 2018 meeting with Angela Calvillo and Jon Givner include: Angela Calvillo (Clerk), Jon Givner (City Attorney), Andrea Bruss (Legislative Aide) • Attendees for the May 23, 2018 meeting of the SF Latino Partnership Coalition included: Jennie Rodriguez (SF Latino Partnership Coalition Arts and Culture Subcommittee member), Juan Pablo Gutierrez (SF Latino Partnership Coalition Arts and Culture Subcommittee member), Andrea Bruss (Legislative Aide) topic was a briefing on the coalitions mission and proposed planning documents. • Attendees for the May 23, 2018 meeting with Carol Isen included Carol Isen (Department of Human Resources) and Andrea Bruss (Legislative Aide) • Attendees for the May 23, 2018 meeting with Kathrin Moore included: Kathrin Moore (Planning Commissioner) and Andrea Bruss (Legislative Aide) • Attendees for the June 4, 2018 meeting with John Hamasaki included: John Hamasaki (Police Commission Applicant) and Andrea Bruss (Legislative Aide) • Attendees for the June 5, 2018 meeting with Alisa Somera and Jon Givner include: Alisa Somera (Deputy Clerk), Jon Givner (City Attorney), Andrea Bruss (Legislative Aide) • Attendees for the June 12, 2018 meeting with Angela Calvillo and Jon Givner include: Angela Calvillo (Clerk), Jon Givner (City Attorney), Andrea Bruss (Legislative Aide) • Attendees for the June 13, 2018 meeting regarding the OEWD Budget include: Joaquin Torres (Acting Director, OEWD), Ken Rich (Acting Director, OEWD) • Attendees for the June 13, 2018 meeting with the family of Luis Gongoa included Adriana Camarena (member of Justice for Luis) • Attendees for the June 13, 2018 meeting regarding pretrial diversion included: Roma Guy (community leader/advocate) and Nancy Rubin (Interim director of pretrial diversion program) • AtteQdees for the June 18, 2018 meeting with Jason Elliott included: Jason Elliott (Chief of Staff, Mayor's Office) and Andrea Bruss (Legislative Aide) As a disclaimer, please note that records containing personal information, privileged information, or personnel matters may be redacted or withheld pursuant to CA Government Code 6254; Evidence Code sec. 952; Evidence Code sec. 954; Code of Civil Procedure 2018.030; Government Code 6254(c), Art. I, sec. 1; CA Const., Evidence Code sec. 1041; Evidence Code sec. 1040; Government Code sec. 6254(k); and/or Government Code sec. 6276.32. Our office is not able to identify additional records responsive to your request, nor access former-Supervisor/current Mayor Breed's calendar entries for June 19-July 11, 2018. We advise that you please contact the Mayor's office ( [email protected]) for further inquiry. Sincerely, Eileen McHugh
7 19th Annual SOR Report APPENDIX - Page 109 Executive Assistant Board of Supervisors 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, City Hall, Room 244 San Francisco, CA 94102-4689 Phone: (415) 554-7703 I Fax: (415) 554-5163 [email protected] www .stbos.org From: [mailto: ] Sent: Monday, August 06, 2018 1:45 PM To: ; Calvillo, Angela (BOS)
Hello Peggy Nevin and Eillen McHugh, Your boss Angela Calvillo's addy just sent me an auto-reply stating she is out of the office and that you are to be contacted for matters other than legislative business. Please acknowledge getting this public records request by the close of business today. Much appreciated. Michael Petrelis Public Advocate
-----Original Message----- From: mpetrelis < > To: angela.calvillo
Clerk of the Board City Hall San Francisco, CA Dear Angela Calvillo, This is an immediate disclosure request for a copy of London Breed's calendars as president and a member of the Board of Supervisors from May I through July 11, of this year. I believe she maintained two calendars for the two offices before moving over to Room 200. If the requested public records are available for public inspection without having to submit a written request, lemme know. Please confirm receipt of this IDR by the close of business today and explain when to expect responsive records. Thanks. Michael Petrelis Public Advocate Dear Mr. Petrelis, Thank you for your inquiry. On behalf of the Office of the Clerk of the Board, I am confirming receipt of your request. As you are aware, former-Supervisor London Breed was sworn in as Mayor on July 11, 2018. In response to your request, please see attached for a copy of former Supervisor Breed's calendar entries from May 1 through June 18, which our office received per a past inquiry to former Supervisor Breed's staff, prior to her appointment as Mayor. Provided below are also supporting notes pertaining to the attached calendar items, per former-Supervisor Breed's staff.
8 19th Annual SOR Report APPENDIX - Page 110 • Attendees for the May 1, 2018 meeting with Angela Calvillo and Jon Givner include: Angela Calvillo (Clerk), Jon Givner (City Attorney), Andrea Bruss (Legislative Aide) • Attendees for the May 7, 2018 meeting with Matthew Freemen include Matthew Freeman (Undersheriff from Sheriffs Department) Topic: Garden Project/Program • Attendees for the May 7, 2018 meeting with Sheriff Hennessy include Sheriff Hennessey, Topic: Hall of Justice rebuild • Attendees for the May 7, 2018 meeting with Sevrin Campbell include: Severing Campbell (Budget and Legislative Analyst) and Andrea Bruss (Legislative Aide) topic was briefing on budget and finance committee items at the board that week. • Attendees for the May 8, 2018 meeting with Angela Calvillo and Jon Givner include: Angela Calvillo (Clerk), Jon Givner (City Attorney), Andrea Bruss (Legislative Aide) • Attendees for the May 15, 2018 meeting with Angela Calvillo and Jon Givner include: Angela Calvillo (Clerk), Jon Givner (City Attorney), Andrea Bruss (Legislative Aide) • Attendees for the May 15, 2018 meeting with Severin Campbell include: Dan Goncher (Budget and Legislative Analyst) and Andrea Bruss (Legislative Aide) topic was briefing on budget and finance committee items at the board that week. • Attendees for the May 16, 2018 meeting with Tyra Fennell include: Tyra Fennell (arts and community leader) topic: Blue Bridge Project • Attendees for the May 16, 2018 Haight Street Fair Meeting include: Robert Leon (executive director of Haight Ashbury Street Fair), Michael Xavier (Haight Street Merchant), Leon Jones (Haight St Merchant), Samantha Roxas (Legislative Aide) Topic: Haight Street Fair and street closures • Attendees for the May 17, 2018 meeting regarding 531 Bryant Street include Susan Taymor Sagy (Managing Director, Urban Land Development) Mark Young (Asset Management, Urban Land Development) and Andrea Bruss (Legislative Aide) • Attendees for the May 22, 2018 meeting with Carmen Chu included Carmen Chu (Assessor-Recorder), Andrea Bruss (Legislative Aide) and Rachel Cukierman (Deputy Director Assessor-Recorder's Office) • Attendees for the May 22, 2018 meeting with Angela Calvillo and Jon Givner include: Angela Calvillo (Clerk), Jon Givner (City Attorney), Andrea Bruss (Legislative Aide) • Attendees for the May 23, 2018 meeting of the SF Latino Partnership Coalition included: Jennie Rodriguez (SF Latino Partnership Coalition Arts and Culture Subcommittee member), Juan Pablo Gutierrez (SF Latino Partnership Coalition Arts and Culture Subcommittee member), Andrea Bruss (Legislative Aide) topic was a briefing on the coalitions mission and proposed planning documents. • Attendees for the May 23, 2018 meeting with Carol Isen included Carol Isen (Department of Human Resources) and Andrea Bruss (Legislative Aide) • Attendees for the May 23, 2018 meeting with Kathrin Moore included: Kathrin Moore (Planning Commissioner) and Andrea Bruss (Legislative Aide) • Attendees for the June 4, 2018 meeting with John Hamasaki included: John Hamasaki (Police Commission Applicant) and Andrea Bruss (Legislative Aide) • Attendees for the June 5, 2018 meeting with Alisa Somera and Jon Givner include: Alisa Somera (Deputy Clerk), Jon Givner (City Attorney), Andrea Bruss (Legislative Aide) • Attendees for the June 12, 2018 meeting with Angela Calvillo and Jon Givner include: Angela Calvillo (Clerk), Jon Givner (City Attorney), Andrea Bruss (Legislative Aide) • Attendees for the June 13, 2018 meeting regarding the OEWD Budget include: Joaquin Torres (Acting Director, OEWD), Ken Rich (Acting Director, OEWD) • Attendees for the June 13, 2018 meeting with the family of Luis Gongoa included Adriana Camarena (member of Justice for Luis) • Attendees for the June 13, 2018 meeting regarding pretrial diversion included: Roma Guy (community leader/advocate) and Nancy Rubin (Interim director of pretrial diversion program) • Attendees for the June 18, 2018 meeting with Jason Elliott included: Jason Elliott (Chief of Staff, Mayor's Office) and Andrea Bruss (Legislative Aide) As a disclaimer, please note that records containing personal information, privileged information, or personnel matters may be redacted or withheld pursuant to CA Government Code 6254; Evidence Code sec. 952; Evidence Code sec. 954; Code of Civil Procedure 2018.030; Government Code 6254( c ), Art. I, sec. 1; CA Const., Evidence Code sec. 1041; Evidence Code sec. 1040; Government Code sec. 6254(k); and/or Government Code sec. 6276.32.
9 19th Annual SOR Report APPENDIX - Page 111 Our office is not able to identify additional records responsive to your request, nor access former-Supervisor/current Mayor Breed's calendar entries for June 19-July 11, 2018. We advise that you please contact the Mayor's office (mayors'[email protected]) for further inquiry. Sincerely, Eileen McHugh Executive Assistant Board of Supervisors 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, City Hall, Room 244 San Francisco, CA 94102-4689 Phone: (415) 554-7703 I Fax: (415) 554-5163 [email protected] www.sfbos.org From: [mailto: ] Sent: Monday, August 06, 2018 1:45 PM To: ; Calvillo, Angela (BOS)
Hello Peggy Nevin and Billen McHugh, Your boss Angela Calvillo's addy just sent me an auto-reply stating she is out of the office and that you are to be contacted for matters other than legislative business. Please acknowledge getting this public records request by the close of business today. Much appreciated. Michael Petrelis Public Advocate
-----Original Message----- From: mpetrelis < > To: angela.calvillo
Clerk of the Board City Hall San Francisco, CA Dear Angela Calvillo, This is an immediate disclosure request for a copy of London Breed's calendars as president and a member of the Board of Supervisors from May 1 through July 11, of this year. I believe she maintained two calendars for the two offices before moving over to Room 200. If the requested public records are available for public inspection without having to submit a written request,,lemme know. Please confirm receipt of this IDR by the close of business today and explain when to expect responsive records. Thanks. Michael Petrelis Public Advocate Dear Mr. Petrelis, Thank you for your inquiry. On behalf of the Office of the Clerk of the Board, I am responding to your request of August 6, 2018 for the calendar of former supervisor London Breed from May 1 to July 11, 2018. We previously provided the requested information for May 1 to June 18, 2018. Please see attached a copy of former Supervisor Breed's calendar entries from June 19 to July 11, 2018. Provided below are also supporting notes pertaining to the attached calendar items, per former-Supervisor Breed's staff. 10 19th Annual SOR Report APPENDIX - Page 112 •June 19th meeting with Ben Rosenfield and Kelly Kirkpatrick attendees also included Andrea Bruss (Legislative Aide) and Mawuli Tugbenyoh (Legislative Aide) •Topic for the June 19th meeting with Mayor Farrell was check-in •June 19th meeting with Angela Calvillo (Clerk of the Board) and Jon Givner (Deputy City Attorney) attendees also included Andrea Bruss (Legislative Aide) •GAO is an abbreviation for the Government Audit and Oversight Committee of the Board of Supervisors •Topic for the June 20th meeting with Supervisor Cohen was the annual budget • GGB is an abbreviation for the Golden Gate Bridge Board •Topic for the June 25th call with Mayor Sylvester Turner was a congratulatory/introductory call •Attendees at the June 25th meeting with Nadia Sesay (Executive Director of the Office of Community Investment and Infrastructure) also included Andrea Bruss (Legislative Aide) •TA is an abbreviation for San Francisco County Transportation Authority •June 26th meeting with Angela Calvillo (Clerk of the Board) and Jon Givner (Deputy City Attorney) attendees also included Andrea Bruss (Legislative Aide) •Topic for the June 27th meeting with Mayor Farrell was check-in •Topic for the July 5th meeting with Supervisor Yee was child care and education •Attendees for the July 10th Inauguration Briefing included: Andrea Bruss (Legislative Aide), Naomi Kelly (City Administrator), Martha Cohen (Mayors Office), Matthew Goudeau (Office of Protocol), Marjan Philhour (Advisor) As a general disclaimer, please note that records containing personal information, privileged information, or personnel matters may be redacted or withheld pursuant to CA Government Code 6254; Evidence Code sec. 952; Evidence Coae sec. 954; Code of Civil Procedure 2018.030; Government Code 6254(c), Art. I, sec. 1; CA Const., Evidence Code sec. 1041; Evidence Code sec. 1040; Government Code sec. 6254(k); and/or Government Code sec. 6276.32. Regards, Peggy Nevin Operations Deputy Director Board of Supervisors 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, City Hall, Room 244 San Francisco, CA 94102-4689 Phone: (415) 554-7722 I Fax: (415) 554-5163 [email protected]
Please complete a Board of Supervisors Customer Service Satisfaction form by clicking here. The Legislative Research Center 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 Fra.ncisco 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: Mchugh, Eileen (BOS) Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2018 5:44 PM To: Cc: Calvillo, Angela (BOS) ; Nevin, Peggy (BOS) Subject: HE: My reply - Fwd: Sup. Breed's calendar: May/June/July requested Hello Mr. Petrelis, I am working on gathering the rest of the information you requested. In accordance with Sunshine Ordinance/Administrative Code Section §67.25, I anticipate providing you the remainder of your request within 10-days.
11 19th Annual SOR Report APPENDIX - Page 113 Thank you, Eileen McHugh Executive Assistant Board of Supervisors 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, City Hall, Room 244 San Francisco, CA 94102-4689 Phone: (415) 554-7703 I Fax: (415) 554-5163 [email protected] www.sfbos.org
Please complete a Board of Supervisors Customer Service Satisfaction form by clicking here. The Legislative Research Center 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: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 201812:37 PM To: Mchugh, Eileen (BOS)
Subject: My reply - Fwd: Sup. Breed's calendar: May/June/July requested
Hello Eileen, I have received the heavily redacted responsive public records. Thanks for getting them to me so quickly. I am, however, concerned that you didn't provide me with Sup. Breed's calendar from June 19 through July 11, as I had requested. When can I expect her calendar for that time period? Please lemme know today. Best, Michael
-----Original Message----- From: Mchugh, Eileen (BOS) (BOS)
Dear Mr. Petrelis, Thank you for your inquiry. On behalf of the Office of the Clerk of the Board, I am confirming receipt of your request. As you are aware, former-Supervisor London Breed was sworn in as Mayor on July 11, 2018. In response to your request, please see attached for a copy of former Supervisor Breed's calendar entries from May 1 through June 18, which our office received per a past inquiry to former Supervisor Breed's staff, prior to her appointment as Mayor. Provided below are also supporting notes pertaining to the attached calendar items, per former-Supervisor Breed's staff.
12 19th Annual SOR Report APPENDIX - Page 114 • Attendees for the May 1, 2018 meeting with Angela Calvillo and Jon Givner include: Angela Calvillo (Clerk), Jon Givner (City Attorney), Andrea Bruss (Legislative Aide) • Attendees for the May 7, 2018 meeting with Matthew Freemen include Matthew Freeman (Undersheriff from Sheriff's Department) Topic: Garden Project/Program • Attendees for the May 7, 2018 meeting with Sheriff Hennessy include Sheriff Hennessey, Topic: Hall of Justice rebuild • Attendees for the May 7, 2018 meeting with Sevrin Campbell include: Severing Campbell (Budget and Legislative Analyst) and Andrea Bruss (Legislative Aide) topic was briefing on budget and finance committee items at the board that week. • Attendees for the May 8, 2018 meeting with Angela Calvillo and Jon Givner include: Angela Calvillo (Clerk), Jon Givner (City Attorney), Andrea Bruss (Legislative Aide) • Attendees for the May 15, 2018 meeting with Angela Calvillo and Jon Givner include: Angela Calvillo (Clerk), Jon Givner (City Attorney), Andrea Bruss (Legislative Aide) • Attendees for the May 15, 2018 meeting with Severin Campbell include: Dan Goncher (Budget and Legislative Analyst) and Andrea Bruss (Legislative Aide) topic was briefing on budget and finance committee items at the board that week. • Attendees for the May 16, 2018 meeting with Tyra Fennell include: Tyra Fennell (arts and community leader) topic: Blue Bridge Project • Attendees forthe May 16, 2018 Haight Street Fair Meeting include: Robert Leon (executive director of Haight Ashbury Street Fair), Michael Xavier (Haight Street Merchant), Leon Jones (Haight St Merchant), Samantha Roxas (Legislative Aide) Topic: Haight Street Fair and street closures • Attendees for the May 17, 2018 meeting regarding 531 Bryant Street include Susan Taymor Sagy (Managing Director, Urban Land Development) Mark Young (Asset Management, Urban Land Development) and Andrea Bruss (Legislative Aide) • Attendees for the May 22, 2018 meeting with Carmen Chu included Carmen Chu (Assessor-Recorder), Andrea Bruss (Legislative Aide) and Rachel Cukierman (Deputy Director Assessor-Recorder's Office) • Attendees for the May 22, 2018 meeting with Angela Calvillo and Jon Givner include: Angela Calvillo (Clerk), Jon Givner (City Attorney), Andrea Bruss (Legislative Aide) • Attendees for the May 23, 2018 meeting of the SF Latino Partnership Coalition included: Jennie Rodriguez (SF Latino Partnership Coalition Arts and Culture Subcommittee member), Juan Pablo Gutierrez (SF Latino Partnership Coalition Arts and Culture Subcommittee member), Andrea Bruss (Legislative Aide) topic was a briefing on the coalitions mission and proposed planning documents. • Attendees for the May 23, 2018 meeting with Carol lsen included Carol lsen (Department of Human Resources) and Andrea Bruss (Legislative Aide) • Attendees for the May 23, 2018 meeting with Kathrin Moore included: Kathrin Moore (Planning Commissioner) and Andrea Bruss (Legislative Aide) • Attendees for the June 4, 2018 meeting with John Hamasaki included: John Hamasaki (Police Commission Applicant) and Andrea Bruss (Legislative Aide) • Attendees for the June 5, 2018 meeting with Alisa Somera and Jon Givner include: Alisa Somera (Deputy Clerk), Jon Givner (City Attorney), Andrea Bruss (Legislative Aide) • Attendees for the June 12, 2018 meeting with Angela Calvillo and Jon Givner include: Angela Calvillo (Clerk), Jon Givner (City Attorney), Andrea Bruss (Legislative Aide) • Attendees for the June 13, 2018 meeting regarding the OEWD Budget include: Joaquin Torres (Acting Director, OEWD), Ken Rich (Acting Director, OEWD) • Attendees for the June 13, 2018 meeting with the family of Luis Gongoa included Adriana Camarena (member of Justice for Luis) • Attendees for the June 13, 2018 meeting regarding pretrial diversion included: Roma Guy (community leader/advocate) and Nancy Rubin (Interim director of pretrial diversion program) • Attendees for the June 18, 2018 meeting with Jason Elliott included: Jason Elliott (Chief of Staff, Mayor's Office) and Andrea Bruss (Legislative Aide) As a disclaimer, please note that records containing personal information, privileged information, or personnel matters may be redacted or withheld pursuant to CA Government Code 6254; Evidence Code sec. 952; Evidence Code sec. 954; Code of Civil Procedure 2018.030; Government Code 6254(c), Art. I, sec. 1; CA Const., Evidence Code sec. 1041; Evidence Code sec. 1040; Government Code sec. 6254(k); and/or Government Code sec. 6276.32.
13 19th Annual SOR Report APPENDIX - Page 115 Our office is not able to identify additional records responsive to your request, nor access former Supervisor/current-Mayor Breed's calendar entries for June 19-July 11, 2018. We advise that you please contact the Mayor's office ([email protected]) for further inquiry. Sincerely, Eileen McHugh Executive Assistant Board of Supervisors 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, City Hall, Room 244 San Francisco, CA 94102-4689 Phone: (415) 554-7703 I Fax: (415) 554-5163 [email protected] From: [mailto: ] Sent: Monday, August 06, 2018 1 :45 PM To: ; Calvillo, Angela (BOS)
Hello Peggy Nevin and Eillen McHugh, Your boss Angela Calvillo's addy just sent me an auto-reply stating she is out of the office and that you are to be contacted for matters other than legislative business. Please acknowledge getting this public records request by the close of business today. Much appreciated. Michael Petrelis Public Advocate
-----Original Message----- From: mpetrelis < > To: angela.calvillo
Clerk of the Board City Hall San Francisco, CA Dear Angela Calvillo, This is an immediate disclosure request for a copy of London Breed's calendars as president and a member of the Board of Supervisors from May 1 through July 11, of this year. I believe she maintained two calendars for the two offices before moving over to Room 200. If the requested public records are available for public inspection without having to submit a written request, lemme know. Please confirm receipt of this IDR by the close of business today and explain when to expect responsive records. Thanks. Michael Petrelis Public Advocate
14 19th Annual SOR Report APPENDIX - Page 116