File No. 16099
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
File No. ....;,..;;16099_____ _ Item No. -------11 SUNSHINE ORDINANCE TASK FORCE AGENDA PACKET CONTENTS LIST =S=u=ns=h=i.:..:.ne.:.....;:0::..:.r=d=in=a=n=c=e...::.T=as=k~Fo=r:....=c=e _______Date: February 1, 2017 ~ Petition/Complaint Page: 3!:5 B Memorandum - Deputy City Attorney · Page:L ~ Complainant's Supporting Documents Page: ]63 [}1 Respondent's Response Page:'Jtr D Correspondence Page:_ D Order of Determination Page:_ D Minutes Page:_ D Committee Recommendation/Referral Page:_ D Administrator's Report Page:_ D No Attachments OTHER D D D D D D D D D D. D D Completed by:_--=-V_,_.Y_,_o=-=u;;..:.;n=g ______Date 01/27/17 *An asterisked item represents the cover sheet to a document that exceeds 25 pages. The complete document is in the file. P353 Sunshine Ordinance Task Force Complaint Summary File No. 16099 Michael Petrelis V. Ethics Commission Date filed with SOTF: 10/18/16 Contacts information (Complainant information listed first): mpetrelis@aol .com (Complainant) Pelham, LeeAnn (ETH) Blome, Jessica (ETH) [email protected] (Respondent) File No. 16099: Complaint filed by Michael Petrelis against the San Francisco Ethics Commission for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Sections 67.7 (a) and 67.15, by failing to post an agenda containing a meaningful description of each item of business to be transacted or discussed at the meeting and failing to provide an opportunity for members of the public to directly address a policy body on items of interest to the public (October 16, 2016, meeting). Administrative Summary if applicable: Please provide a copy of the minutes for the October 16, 2016 meeting. P354 Young, Victor From: ·[email protected] Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2016 10:09 AM To: -SOTF, (BOS) Subject: New complaint against the Ethics Commission Dear Victor Young, I wish to lodge another complaint against the SF Ethics Commission for the following reasons. On Monday, October 16, the chair, one Paul Renne, without proper advance notice, amended the meeting's agenda. He made the commission's new unconstitutional meeting decorum guidelines, which were not on the agenda, item one and proceeded to read into the minutes the full text of the guidelines. He then blended public comment about this unscheduled item with general public comment. It is my contention that the major issue of First Amendment proteCtions and signage at this commission's meetings should have been agendized and public comment just on the guidelines, separate from general public comment, should have been the order of the day. I ask that you process this complaint accordingly. Please acknowledge receipt of this letter by the close of business today. Regards, MPetrelis * * * * Vote Petrelis tor BART Board's District 9 seat MPetrelis.Blogspot.com Facebook.com/PetrelisFiles Twitter.com/MichaelPetrelis pg55 CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY DENNIS J. HERRERA NICHOLAS COLLA City Attorney Deputy City Attorney Direct Dial: (415) 554-3819 Email: [email protected] MEMORANDUM TO: Sunshine Ordinance Task Force FROM: Nicholas Colla Deputy City Attorney DATE: January 6, 2017 RE: Complaint No. 16099 - Petrelis v. LeeAnn Pelham and Jessica Blome of the San Francisco Ethics Commission COMPLAINT Complainant Michael Petrelis ("Complainant") alleges that LeeAnn Pelham ("Ms. · Pelham") and Jessica Blome ("Ms. Blome") of the San Francisco Ethics Commission ("the Commission") violated provisions of Administrative Code Section 67 ("the Sunshine Ordinance")·and Government Code Section 54950 et. seq. ("the Brown Act") by allegedly failing to agendize an item discussed at the October 17, 2016 Commission meeting and failing to allow public comment on the unagendized item. COMPLAINANT FILES TIDS COMPLAINT On October 18, 2016, Complainant filed a complaint with the Task Force regarding the Commission's alleged failure to agendize an item discussed at the October 17, 2016 Commission meeting and failing to allow public comment on the unagendized item. JURISDICTION The Commission is a City policy body. The Task Force therefore generally has jurisdiction to hear a complaint of a violation of the Sunshine Ordinance against the Commission. The Commission has not contested jurisdiction. APPLICABLE STATUTORY SECTION(S) Section 67 of the San Francisco Administrative Code: • Secti?n 67. 7 governs the agenda requirements for public meetings. • Section 67.9 governs the documents related to agendas for public meetings. • Section 67 .15 governs public comment. Section 54950 et. seq. of the California Government Code: • Section 54954.2 governs agenda requirements for legislative body meetings. APPLICABLE CASE LAW • none Fox PLAZA • 1390 MARKET STREET, 6TH FLOOR • SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94102-5408 RECEPTION: (415) 554-3800 • FACSIMILE: (415) 437-4644 n:\codenf\as2014\960024 l \01161287.doc P356 CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY MEMORANDUM TO: Sunshine Ordinance Task Force DATE: January 6, 2017 PAGE: 2 RE: Complaint No. 16099-Petrelis v. LeeAnn Pelham and Jessica Blome of the San Francisco Ethics Commission BACKGROUND On October 18, 2016, Complainant filed this complaint with the Task Force in which he alleged in part as follows: On Monday, October 16, the chair, one Paul Renne, without proper advance notice, amended the meeting's agenda. He made the commission's new unconstitutional meeting decorum guidelines, which were not on the agenda, item one and proceeded to read into the minutes the full text of the guidelines. He then blended public comment about this unscheduled item with general public comment. · It is my contention that the major issue of First Amendment protections and signage at this commission's meetings should have been agendized and public comment just on the guidelines, separate from general public comment, should have been the order of the day. On October 31, 2016, in response to the filing ofthis complaint, Ms. Blome, Deputy Director of the Commission, sent a letter to the Task Force addressing the allegations. Ms. Blome's letter contends that the subject matter at issue, the meeting decorum guidelines, were always included at the top of Commission agendas. As such, Ms. Blome contends that the Commission began the meeting by simply noting a change to the policy terms included in the agenda template rather than addressing an unagenized item as Complainant contends. Regarding Complainant's allegation that this was an unagendized item, Ms. Blome' s letter states as follows: Sunshine Ordinance section 67. 7 requires a policy body to post an agenda containing a "meaningful description of each item of business to be transacted or discussed at the meeting." Agendas must specify for each item of business the proposed action or a statement that the item is for discussion only. Id. Notwithstanding the Sunshine Ordinance's agenda itemization requirements, the Brown Actl provides that "a member of a legislative body may ... make a brief announcement, or make a brief report on his or her own activities ... "even ifthe announcement was not included on the meeting agenda. California Government Code § 54954.2(2). When Chair Renne read the new agenda template language regarding meeting decorum aloud, he was simply announcing the existence of new language on the standardized agenda, and he treated it as such. The Commission did not announce the new notification for discussion or decision-making purposes. As evidenced by SFGov.TV's recording, Chair Remie merely informed the public that he had asked Staff to prepare the notification and then read the notification aloud for the public's benefit. The Commission took no further action and attempted to proceed with its regular business. When Mr. Petrelis demanded an opportunity for public n:\codent\as2014\960024 l \01161287.doc P357 CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY MEMORANDUM TO: Sunshine Ordinance Task Force DATE: January 6, 2017 PAGE: 3 RE: Complaint No. 16099 -Petrelis v. LeeAnn Pelham and Jessica Blome of the San Francisco Ethics Commission comment, Chair Renne explained that he was free to provide public comment on any matter within the subject matter expertise of the Commission during the general public comment period, and Mr. Petrelis did so. Chair Renne's announcement of the existence of the meeting decorum notification was not an item of business that the Commission intended to discuss or for which action would be taken, so the Commission did not violation section 67. 7 by not including it as an item for public comment on the agenda. Regarding Complainant's contention that separate public comment should have been taken to address the alleged unagendized item, Ms. Blame's letter states as follows: Section 67.15 of the Sunshine Ordinance requires policy bodies to "provide an opportunity for members of the public to directly address a policy body on items of interest to the public that are within the policy body's subject matter jurisdiction, provided that no action shall be taken on any item not appearing on the agenda ...." The Sunshine Ordinance does not define "action taken," but the Brown Act defines "action taken" as "a collective decision made by a majority of the members of a legislative body, a collective commitment or promise by a majority of the members of a legislative body to make a positive or a negative decision, or an actual vote by a majority of the members of a legislative body when sitting as a body or entity, upon a motion, proposal, resolution, order or ordinance." California Government Code section 54952.6. On October 17, the Commission gave the public two opportunities to directly address the Commission on items of interest to the public within the policy body's subject matter jurisdiction: at the beginning of the meeting with "Agenda Item 2, Public comment on matters appearing or not appearing on the agenda" and at the end of the meeting with "Agenda Item 9, Additional opportunity for public comment on matters appearing or not appearing on the agenda pursuant to Ethics Commission Bylaws Article VII Section 2." Mr.