File No. 18036
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
File No. _;;__:;_..::..__::_::.__18036 ___ _ Item No.7------- SUNSHINE ORDINANCE TASK FORCE AGENDA PACKET CONTENTS LIST Complaint Committee Date: June 26, 2018 t.-9 g)_ Petition/Complaint & Supporting Page:l_ Documents tZ. ~ Memorandum- Deputy City Attorney Page:_,_ Respondent's Response Page:_ B Correspondence Page:_ D Order of Determination Page:_ D Minutes Page:_ D Administrator's Report Page:_ D No Attachments OTHER D D D D D D D D D Completed by:_---=:C-=--. =Le=g"-"e'-'-r ______Date 06/18/18 *An asterisked item represents the cover sheet to a document that exceeds 25 pages. The complete document is in the file. P119 Young, Victor From: admini.stration <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, April 06, 2018 5:45 PM To: Young, Victor Subject: RE: SOTF -Sunshine Ordinance Task Force response to request RE: Brown Act Violation Complaint Yes, I would like to file a complaint with the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force against: Mark Farrell Aaron Peskin Hi.lary Ronen Norman Yee Sandra Fewer Jane Kim Jeff Sheehy Please consider the allegations in my earlier letter to constitute my complaint, and please initiate the complaint procedures. Sincerely, Reverend Dr. Amos C. Brown President SF NAACP ·From: Young, Victor [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: April 5, 2018 10:40 AM To: administration <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected]; Chris Hyland <[email protected]>; Calvillo, Angela (BOS) <[email protected]> . · Subject: SOTF- Sunshine Ordinance Task Force response to request RE: Brown Act Violation Complair;~t Dr. Brown: At the Apri14, 2018, meeting the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force (SOTF) reviewed your March 13, 2018, letter requesting that the Office of the District Attorney, Ethics Commission and SOTF investigate allegation against certain mem.bers of the Board of Supervisors. The SOTF would like to know if you wish to file a complaint against certain members of the Board of Supervisors for possible violation ofthe Brown Act and the Sunshine Ordinance. I have attached a'copy ofthe SOTF Complaint Procedures for your review but to summarize: " The complaint will be referred to the Respondent (Please provide the names ofthe specific Respondents to be included in the complaint) e A hearing befOre the SOTF Complaint Committee will be scheduled to review the matter prior to the full SOTF meeting- Both the Complainant and the Respondent are required to attend the hearing to provide testimony 1?120 • A hearing before the SOTF will be scheduled to review the merits ofthe complaint -The Complainant . and the Respondent are required to attend the hearing to provide testimony • Upon conclusion of the SOTF hearing an Order of Determination will be issued Please let me know if you would like to open a SOTF complaint. Thank you. Victor Young 415-554-7724 Administrator, Sunshine Ordinance Task Force From: administration [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2018 6:08 PM To: Young, Victor <[email protected]> Subject: Brown Act Violation Complaint On behalf ofthe San Francisco NAACP please see attached complaint. CiTY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO OFFICE OF THE CiTY ATTORNEY DENNIS J. HERRERA MARC PRICE WOLF City Attorney Deputy City Attorney Direct Dial: (415) 554-3901 Email: [email protected] MEMORANDUM TO: Sunshine Ordinance Task Force FROM: Marc Price Wolf Deputy City Attorney DATE: June 21, 2018 RE: Complaint No. 18036- Amos Brown and NAACP v. Supervisor Aaron Peskin COMPLAINT Complainants Reverend Dr.Amos Brown and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People ("Complainants") allege that Supervisor Aaron Peskin violated provisions of the Sunshine Ordinance and Cal. Gov't Code Section 54950 et seq. ·("the Brown Act") by failing to make all meetings of any policy body open and public by holding a seriatim or serial meetings prior to the commencement oftbe January 23, 2018 Board of Supervisors meeting ("the Meeting"). COMPLAINANT FILES THIS COMPLAINT On April6, 2018, Complainants filed this complaint with the Task Force alleging that Mr. Peskin violated provisions of the Sunshine Ordinance and the Brown Act relating to the notice and protocol of public meetings. JURISDICTION The Board of Supervisors is a policy body under the Ordinance. The Task Force therefore generally has jurisdiction to hear a complaint of a violation of the Ordinance against the Board. The Commission has not contested jurisdiction. APPLICABLE STATUTORY SECTION(S) Section 67 of the San Francisco Administrative Code: • Sections 67.3 and 67.5. Section 54950 et seq. Cal. Gov't Code (Brown Act) • Sections 54952.2, 54953.3, 54954, 54954.2, and 54954.3 BACKGROUND On April6, 2018, Reverend Dr. Amos Brown, President of the SF NAACP, notified the SOTF that he wanted to file a complaint with the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force against Mark Farrell, Aaron Peskin, Hilary Ronen, Norman Yee, Sandra Fewer, Jane Kim, and Jeff Sheehy (collectively "Supervisors"). Fox PLAZA · 1390 MARKET STREET, 6TH FLOOR · SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94102-5408 RECEPTION: (415) 554-3800 • FACSIMILE: (415) 437-4644 /users/marcwolf/documents/marc sf cao/sunshine/18'fi~ -2a~os brown and naacp v. supervisor aaron peskin.doc CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY MEMORANDUM TO: Sunshine Ordinance Task Force DATE: June 21, 2018 PAGE: 2 RE: Complaint No. 18036- Amos Brown and NAACP v. Supervisor Aaron Peskin The complaint alleges that the Supervisors held serial meetings or a seriatim meeting about the appointment of an interim mayor before the January 23, 2018, Board of Supervisors Meeting, during which Supervisor Farrell was appointed Interim Mayor. The complaint relies on information printed in the January 28, 2018, San Francisco Chronicle Article, "Unusual Pairing of Supervisors Helped Unite Majority of Board Against Breed"; the January 24, 2018 48hills.org article, "Farrell as Mayor: How Did This Happen?"; and the January 23, 2018 Missionlocal.org article, "Mark Fanell is Your New Mayor- and Pandemonium Ensues." Supervisors Fewer, Peskin, Ronen, and Yee each wrote letters to the SOTF denying any wrongdoing. A legislative aide for Supervisor Sheehy wrote an email to the SOTF acknowledging receipt of the complaint and stating that his office was awaiting further instructions. QUESTIONS THAT MIGHT ASSIST IN DETERMINING FACTS • Did a majority of the Supervisors meet to discuss the substance of any policy issues, including the appointment of an interim mayor, before the January 23, 2018 Board of Supervisors meeting? • Can the Complainants provide any evidence that the substance of an agenda item/policy issue/appointment of an interim mayor was discussed before the January 23, 2018 Board of Supervisors meeting? LEGAL ISSUES/LEGAL DETERMINATIONS • Should any of the alleged discussions between members of the Board of Supervisors before the January 23, 2018 meeting be defined as a policy body meeting under Administrative Code Section 67.3? • Did any of the Supervisors violate the Brown Act by holding a seriatim meeting or serial meetings? CONCLUSION THE TASK FORCE FINDS THE FOLLOWING FACTS TO BE TRUE: THE TASK FORCE FINDS THE ALLEGED VIOLATIONS TO BE TRUE OR NOT TRUE. * * * CHAPTER 67, SAN FRANCISCO ADMINISTRATIVE CODE (SUNSHINE ORDINANCE) SEC. 67.3. DEFINITIONS. Whenever in this Article the following words or phrases are used, they shall have the following meamngs: (a) 11 City11 shall mean the City and County of San Francisco. p 1~3'marcwolf/documents/marc sf cao/sunshine/18036 - amos brown and naacp v. super CiTY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO OFFICE OF THE CiTY ATTORNEY MEMORANDUM TO: Sunshine Ordinance Task Force DATE: June 21, 2018 PAGE: 3 RE: Complaint No. 18036- Amos Brown and NAACP v. Supervisor Aaron Peskin (b) "Meeting" shall mean any of the following: (1) A congregation of a majority of the inembers of a policy body at the same time and place; (2) A series of gatherings, each of which involves less than a majority of a policy body, to hear, discuss or deliberate upon any item that is within the subject matter jurisdiction of the City, if the cumulative result is that a majority of members has become involved in such gatherings; or (3) Any other use of personal intermediaries or communications media that could permit a majority of the members of a policy body to become aware of an item of business and of the views or positions of other members with respect thereto, and to negotiate consensus thereupon. (4) "Meeting" shall not include any of the following: (A) Individual contacts or conversations between a member of a policy body and another person that do not convey to the member the views or positions of other members upon the subject matter of the contact or conversation and in which the member does not solicit or encourage the restatement of the views of the other members; (B) The attendance of a majority of the members of a policy body at a regional, statewide or national conference, or at a meeting organized to address a topic of local community concern and open to the public, provided that a majority of the members refrains from using the occasion to collectively discuss the topic of the gathering or any other business within the subject matter jurisdiction of the City; or (C) The attendance of a majority of the members of a policy body at a purely social, recreational or ceremonial occasion other than one sponsored or organized by or for the policy body itself, provided that a majority of the members refrains from using the occasion to discuss any business within the subject matter jurisdiction of this body. A meal gathering of a policy body before, during or after a business meeting of the body is part of that meeting and shall be conducted only under circumstances that permit public access to hear and observe the discussion of members.