File No. __.:;_:....:....;__:__19078 ___ _ Item No.6
SUNSHINE ORDINANCE TASK FORCE AGENDA PACKET CONTENTS LIST
Complaint Committee Date: September 17, 2019
'(,~ D Petition/Complaint Page: \ -v D Memorandum - Deputy City Attorney Page:-\-({) ~ D Petitioner/Complainant Supporting Documents Page:_l~ \ D Respondent's Response Page:_·_\ rV D Public 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:....:... -=L=e.;;J.g=er:.______Date 9/10/19
*An asterisked item represents the cover sheet to a document that exceeds 25 pages. The complete document is in the file.
P161 Leger, Cheryl (BOS)
From: Google Forms
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
Your form has a new entry.
Here are the results.
Complaint against which Department or There isn't any question appearing but this box is telling me I must include an answer. Commission
Alleged Violation Public Records
I am disturbed that memb12rs of the Board of Supervisors, feel it appropriate to exclude individuals from public forums because they simply do not agree with their opinions.
In particular, I refer to the supervisor for my district, Matt Haney who often uses Twitter for purposes of communicating with those of us who pay his wages. After being insulted by friends of Matt on Twitter with swearing and name calling, Matt Please describe alleged blocked. violation
With regards to the recent US Court of Appeals ruling of 11 July, upholding a previous ruling by a lower court that public officials are prohibited from excluding individuals from an otherwise open online dialogue because they expressed views with which the official disagrees.
My request i~ simple- that public officials in San Francisco, specifically Matt Haney, are
Pl62 not allowed to deny me and others our First Amendment rights under the US Constitution.
Date 23 July 2019
Name Stephen McGeown
Address 33 8th Street, Apt 1825
City San Francisco
Zip 94103
Telephone 4155839337
Email · [email protected]
Sent via Google Forms Email 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: marc.price.wolf@sfcityatty .org
MEMORANDUM
TO: Sunshine Ordinance Task Force FROM: Marc Price Wolf Deputy City Attorney DATE: September 3, 2018 RE: Complaint No. 19078- Stephen McGeown v. Supervisor Matt Haney
COMPLAINT Complainant Stephen McGeown ("Complainant") alleges that Supervisor Matt Haney ("Sup. Haney") of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors ("BOS") violated provisions of the . Sunshine Ordinance by blocking Complainant on Twitter. COMPLAINANT FILES THIS COMPLAINT On July 23, 2019, Complainant filed this complainant with the Task Force regarding Sup. Haney's alleged activity of blocking Complainant on Twitter. JURISDICTION Sup. Haney is a member of a policy body under the Ordinance. The Task Force therefore generally has jurisdiction to hear a complaint of a violation of the Ordinance against Sup. Haney. Sup. Haney has not contested jurisdiction. APPLICABLE STATUTORY SECTION(S) Section 67 of the San Francisco Administrative Code: • Section 67.21 governs responses to public records requests. • Section 67.29 describes the public index requirements. • Section 67.29-7 governs the maintenance of correspondence and records Section 34090 et seq. of the Cal. Gov't Code ("CPRA") • Section 34090 governs the destruction of city records. BACKGROUND. On July 23, 2019, Complainant submitted a complaint to the SOTF, stating that he is "disturbed that members of the Board of Supervisors, feel it appropriate to exclude individuals from public forums because they simply do not agree with their opinions. In particular, I refer to the.supervisor for my district, Matt Haney who often uses Twitter for purposes of communicating with those of us who pay his wages. After being insulted by friends of Matt on Twitter with swearing and name calling, Matt blocked." Complainant continued, "My request is
Fox PLAZA · 1390 MARKET STREET, 6TH FLOOR · SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94102-5408 RECEPTION: (415) 554-3800 · FACSIMILE: (415) 437-4644
n:\codenf\as2014\9600241 \01389095.doc
P164 CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY MEMORANDUM
TO: Sunshine Ordinance Task Force DATE: September 3, 2019 PAGE: 2 RE: Complaint No. 19078 - Stephen McGeown v. Supervisor Matt Haney
simple- that public officials in San Francisco, specifically Matt Haney, are not allowed to deny me and others our First Amendment rights under the U.S. Constitution." Although unclear from this complaint, it appears that Complainant alleges Supervisor Haney's friends insulted Complainant on Twitter and then Supervisor Haney blocked Complainant on Twitter. This Complaint does not allege that Complainant requested any documents under the Sunshine Ordinance. On August 26, 2019, Supervisor Haney wrote a letter to the SOTF. He stated, "I previously blocked Mr. McGeown. [sic] from my Twitter account. Atthe time I did not know he was a constituent and did not know his real name. I did not block Mr. McGeown because of his political views." Supervisor Haney continued, "I have only blocked people from Twitter when their remarks were in clear violation of Twitter's user code of conduct and rose to the level that I believed to be threatening or aggressive towards myself I have since unblocked Mr. McGeown from my account."
APPLICABLE CASE LAW In City of San Jose v. Superior Court (2017) 2 Cal.5th 608, the City of San Jose received a request for all voicemail messages, email or text messages sent or received on private electronic devices used by the City's Mayor, members of its City Counsel and/or their staff regarding San Jose City matters. In response, the City provided records sent from/received on private electronic devices using City accounts but not records from private devices using private accounts. The requestor challenged this decision in an action for declaratory relief. The State Supreme Court held that communications on personal electronic devices or · personal accounts involving the conduct of the public's business may be public records subject to disclosure. Such writings include, but are not limited to, emails on personal computers and text messages on personal cell phones. The Task Force may want to consider whether the information at issue is a form of conducting public business via a Twitter account. QUESTIONS THAT MIGHT ASSIST IN DETERMINING FACTS • Does Complainant contend that Supervisor Haney's Twitter feed should be considered public business? • How does Sup. Haney contend that his Twitter feed should not be considered public business? • What was the content of Supervisor Haney's Twitter messages that were blocked to Complainant? LEGAL ISSUES/LEGAL DETERMINATIONS • Did Sup. Haney violate Administrative Code Sections 67.21, 67.29, and 67.29-7, or Gov. Code Section 34090 with any ofhis conduct related to the maintenance of his Twitter feed?
n:\codenf\as20 14\9600241\013 8909 5 .doc P165 CiTY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO OFFICE OF THE CiTY ATTORNEY MEMORANDUM
TO: Sunshine Ordinance Task Force DATE: September 3, 2019 PAGE: 3 RE: Complaint No. 19078 -Stephen McGeown v. Supervisor Matt Haney
CONCLUSION
THE TASK FORCE FINDS THE FOLLOWING FACTS TO BE TRUE:
THE TASK FORCE FINDS THE ALLEGED VIOLATIONS TO BE TRUE OR NOT TRUE.
n:\codenf\as2014\9600241 \01389095.doc P166 CiTY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO OFFICE OF THE CiTY ATTORNEY MEMORANDUM
TO: Sunshine Ordinance Task Force DATE: September 3, 2019 PAGE: 4 RE: Complaint No. 19078- Stephen McGeown v. Supervisor Matt Haney
* * * CHAPTER 67, SAN FRANCISCO ADMINISTRATIVE CODE (SUNSHINE ORDINANCE)
SEC. 67.21. PROCESS FOR GAINING ACCESS TO PUBLIC RECORDS; ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS. . (a) Every person having custody of any public record or public information, as defined herein, (hereinafter referred to as a custodian of a public record) shall, at normal times and during normal and reasonable hours of operation, without unreasonable delay, and without requiring an appointment, permit the public record, or any segregable portion of a record, to be inspected and examined by any person and shall furnish one copy thereof upon payment of a reasonable · copying charge, not to exceed the lesser of the actual cost or ten cents per page. (b) A custodian of a public record shall, as soon as possible and within ten days following receipt of a request for inspection or copy of a public record, comply with such request. Such request may be delivered to the office of the custodian by the requester orally or in writing by fax, postal delivery, or e-mail. If the custodian believes the record or information requested is not a public record or is exempt, the custodian shall justify withholding any record by demonstrating, in writing as soon as possible and within ten days following receipt of a request, that the record in question is exempt under express provisions of this ordinance. (c) A custodian of a public record shall assist a requester in identifying the existence, form, and nature of any records or information maintained by, available to, or in the custody cifthe custodian, whether or not the contents of those records are exempt from disclosure and shall, when requested to do so, provide in writing within seven days following receipt of a request, a statement as to the existence, quantity, form and nature of records relating to a particular subject or questions with enough specificity to enable a requester to identify records in order to make a request under (b). A custodian of any public record, when not in possession of the record requested, shall assist a requester in directing a request to the proper office or staff person. (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 10 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 ofthe 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. (e) If the custodian refuses, fails to comply, or incompletely complies with a request described in (b) above or if a petition is denied or not acted on by the supervisor of public records, the person making the request may petition the Sunshine Task Force for a determination whether the
n:\codenf\as20 14\9600241\013 8909 5 .doc P167 CiTY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO OFFICE OF THE CiTY ATTORNEY MEMORANDUM
TO: Sunshine Ordinance Task Force DATE: September 3, 2019 PAGE: 5 RE: Complaint No. 19078- Stephen McGeown v. Supervisor Matt Haney
record requested is public. The Sunshine Task Force shall inform the petitioner, as soon as possible and within 2 days after its next meeting but in no case later than 45 days from when a petition in writing is received, 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 determina:tion that the record is public, the Sunshine Task Force 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 within5 days, the Sunshine Task Force shall notify the district attorney or the attorney general who may take whatever measures she or he.deems necessary to insure compliance with the provisions of this ordinance. The Board of Supervisors and the City Attorney's office shall provide sufficient staff and resources to allow the Sunshine Task Force to fulfill its duties under this provision. Where requested by the petition, the Sunshine Task Force may conduct a public hearing concerning the records request denial. An authorized representative of the custodian of the public records requested shall attend any hearing and explain the basis for its decision to withhold the records requested.
SEC. 67.29- INDEX TO RECORDS The City and County shall prepare a public records index that identifies the types of information and documents maintained by City and County departments, agencies, boards, commissions, and elected officers. The index shall be for the use of City officials, staff and the general public, and shall be organized to permit a general understanding of the types of information maintained, by which officials and departments, for which purposes and for what periods of retention, and under what manner of organization for accessing, e.g. by reference to a name, a date, a proceeding or project, or some other referencing system. The index need not be in such detail as to identify files or records concerning a specific person, transaction or other event, but shall clearly indicate where .,and how records of that type are kept. Any such master index shall be reviewed by appropriate staff for accuracy and presented for formal adoption to the administrative official or policy body responsible for the indexed records. The City Administrator shall be responsible for the preparation of this records index. The City Administrator shall report on the progress of the index to the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force on at least a semi-annual basis until the index is completed. Each department, agency, commission and public official shall cooperate with the City Administrator to identify the types of records it maintains, including those documents created by the entity and those documents received in the ordinary course of business and the types of requests that are regularly received. Each department, agency, commission and public official is encouraged to solicit and encourage public participation to develop a meaningful records index. The index shall clearly and meaningfully describe, with as much specificity as practicable, the individual types of records that are prepared or maintained by each department, agency, commission or public official of the City and County. The index shall be sufficient to aid the public in making an inquiry or a request to inspect. Any changes in the department, agency, commission or public official's practices or procedures affecting the accuracy of the information provided to the City Administrator shall be recorded by the City Administrator on a periodic basis so as to maintain the integrity and accuracy of the index. The index shall be continuously maintained on the City's World Wide Website and made available at public libraries within the City and County of San Francisco.
n:\codenf\as2014\9600241 \01389095.doc P168 CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCiSCO OFFICE OF THE CITY AHORNEY MEMORANDUM
TO: Sunshine Ordinance Task Force DATE: September 3, 2019 PAGE: 6 RE: Complaint No.. 19078 Stephen McGeown v. Supervisor Matt Haney
SEC. 67.29-7 CORRESPONDENCE AND RECORDS SHALL BE MAINTAINED (a) The Mayor and all Department Heads shall maintain and preserve in a professional and businesslike manner all documents and correspondence, including but not limited to letters, e-mails, drafts, memorandum, invoices, reports and proposals and shall disclose all such records in accordance with this ordinance. (b) The Department qf Elections shall keep and preserve all records and invoices relating to the design and printing of ballots and other election materials and shall keep and preserve records documenting who had custody of ballots from the time ballots are cast until ballots are received and certified by the Department of Elections. (c) In any contract, agreement or permit between the City and any outside entity that authorizes that entity to demand any funds or fees from citizens, the City shall ensure that accurate records of each transaction are maintained in a professional and businesslike manner and are available to the public as public records under the provisions of this ordinance. Failure of an entity to comply with these provisions shall be grounds for terminating the contract or for _ imposing a financial penalty equal to one-half of the fees derived under the agreement or permit ·during the period of time when the failure was in effect. Failure of any Depmiment Head under this provision shall be a violation of this ordinance. This paragraph shall apply to any agreement allowing an entity to tow or impound vehicles in the City and shall apply to any agreement allowing an entity to collect any fee from any persons in any pretrial diversion program.
CAL. PUBLIC RECORDS ACT (GOVT. CODE§§ 6250, ET SEQ.) SEC. 34090 DESTRUCTION OF CITY RECORDS; EXCEPTED RECORDS; CONSTRUCTION
Unless otherwise provided by law, with the approval of the legislative body by resolution and the written consent of the city attorney the head of a city department may destroy any city record, document, instrument, book or paper, under his charge, without making a copy thereof, after the same is no longer required. This section does not authorize the destruction of: -(a) Records affecting the title to real property or liens thereon. (b) Court records. (c) Records required to be kept by statute. (d) Records less than two years old .
. ( ~) The minutes, ordinances, or resolutions of the legislative body or of a city board or commiSSIOn. This section shall not be construed as limiting or qualifying in any manner the authority provided in Section 34090.5 for the destruction of records, documents, instruments, books and papers in accordance with the procedure therein prescribed.
n:\codenf\as2014\9600241 \0 1389095.doc P169 Sunshine Ordinance Task Force Complaint Summary File No. 19078
Stephen McGeown v. Matt Haney
Date filed with SOTF: 7/23/19
Contacts information (Complainant information listed first): Stephen McGeown ([email protected]) (Complainant) Matt Haney ([email protected]) ; Honey Mahogany ([email protected]); Courtney McDonald ( [email protected]); Abigail Rivamonte Mesa ( abigail.rivamontemesa@sfgov. org); (Respondents)
File No. 19078: Complaint filed by Stephen McGeown against Matt Haney the for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Section 67.21, by failing to respond to a public records request in a timely and/or complete manner.
Administrative Summary if applicable:
Complaint Attached.
P170 o . plainant/Petiti ners ocu e ts Submission
~- .
/ .
P171 Leger, Cheryl (BOS)
From: Stephen McGeown
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
While he has unblocked me, I take issue with his comments:
i) He suggests that he didn't believe I was a constituent. I think from my tweets, it is pretty clear than I live and any reading of my tweets, including pictures taken from the roof of my apartment building, make it very obvious, not just .that I was a constituent but likely also make it easy to identify the apartment building that I live in.
ii) He suggests that I made comments that were in "clear violation of Twitter's user code of conduct" and rose to a level I that he believed to be "threatening".
This was the comment that he (not Twitter) decided was· in breach of Twitter's code of use (where incidentally, the way to deal with those is to report same to Twitter) and threatening:
"When you vote against affordable housing that would not cost the city a cent because of a fucking shadow/ your words become meaningless. We don't need billions more debt. Lack of funding is not the problem in SF. 11
On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 1:54PM SOTF, (BOS)
Dear Stephen:
' Please see the email below and attachments provided by Matt Haney's office. Please review and let me know if this response satisfies your request. If it does, do you wish to withdraw your complaint? I look forward to hearing from you soon.
Cheryl Leger
Assistant Clerk, Board of Supervisors
Tel: 415-554-7724 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. Aft written or oral communications that members of the public submit to the Clerk's Office regarding pending legislation or hearings wilt 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: RivamonteMesa, Abigail (BOS)
1 Subject: Re: SOTF- Complaint Filed with the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force- File No. 19078
Attached please find Supervisor Haney's response to the below inquiry.
Please feel free to contact me with questions.
Abigail Leger, Cheryl (BOS)
From: Stephen McGeown
Board of supervisors.
On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 3:33 PM SOTF, (BOS)
Mr. McGeown:
Which department are you complaining against? Thank you.
Cheryl Leger
Assistant Clerk, Board of Supervisors
Tel: 415-554-7724
ICf{!)• 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 August1998.
Disclosures: Personal information that is provided in communications to the Board of Supervisors is subject to disclosure under the CaHjornia 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: Google Forms
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
Your form has a new entry.
Here are the results.
Complaint against which Department or There isn't any question appearing but this box is telling me I must include an answer. Commission
Alleged Violation Public Records
I am disturbed that members ofthe Board of Supervisors, feel it appropriate to exclude individuals from public forums because they simply do not agree with their opinions.
In particular, I refer to the supervisor for my district, Matt Haney who often uses Twitter for purposes of communicating with those of us who pay his wages. After being insulted by friends of Matt on Twitter with swearing and name calling, Matt blocked.
Please describe alleged violation With regards to the recent US Court of Appeals ruling of 11 July, upholding a previous ruling by a lower court that public officials are prohibited from excluding individuals from an otherwise open online dialogue because they expressed views with which the offici a I disagrees.
My request is simple- that public officials in San Francisco, specifically Matt Haney, are not allowed to deny me and others our First Amendment rights under the US Constitution.
Date 23 July 2019
P1~5 Name Stephen McGeown
Address 33 8th Street, Apt 1825
City San Francisco
Zip 94103
Telephone 4155839337
Email [email protected]
Sent via Google Forms Email
Pf76 I (BOS)
From: Stephen McGeown < [email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2019 3:33 PM To: SOTF, (BOS) Subject: Re: SOTF- Complaint filed by McGeown
I've just resubmitted a form online. Unfortunately, when one submits a form online, the system simply returns to the home screen and doesn't give any option to print or forward. I do not have any correspondence as your online form doesn't enable one to save nor does it even send an automated acknowledgement that the form has been received. I have included the details as above in my email,
Thank you
Stephen
On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 3:02 PM SOTF, (BOS)
Dear Mr. McGeown:
I am in receipt of and thank you for your email below. If you choose to file a Sunshine complaint, please forward your original request and responses/comments to me and I can open a complaint file on your behalf. I also ask that you fill out the Complaint form found under the Board of Supervisors web page under sunshine. Hope this alleviates your concerns.
Cheryl Leger
Assistant Clerk, Board of Supervisors
Tel: 415-554-7724
1/l.O• 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 ta 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 af 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 docu·ments that members of the public may inspect or copy.
From: Stephen McGeown
This message is from outside the City emai) system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
Approx 2 months ago, I filed a complaint online and have received zero response.
I am disturbed that members of the Board of Supervisors, feel it appropriate to exclude individuals from public forums because they simply do not agree with their opinions.
In particular, I refer to the supervisor for my district, Matt Haney who often uses Twitter for purposes of communicating with those of us who pay his wages. After being insulted by friends of Matt on Twitter with swearing and name calling, Matt blocked.
With regards to the recent US Court of Appeals ruling of 11 July, upholding a previous ruling by a lower court that public officials are prohibited from excluding individuals from an otherwise open online dialogue because they expressed views with which the official disagrees.
My request is simple- that public officials in San Francisco, specifically Matt Haney, are not allowed to deny me and others our First Amendment rights under the US Constitution.
It is frustrating that I still have not received any response to my prior online complaint.
Pf78 I (BOS)
From: Stephen McGeown < [email protected] > Sent: Monday, July 22, 2019 4:03 PM To: SOTF, (BOS)
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
Approx 2 months ago, I filed a complaint online and have received zero response.
1 am disturbed that members of the Board of Supervisors, feel it appropriate to exclude individuals from public forums because they simply do not agree with their opinions.
In particular, I refer to the supervisor for my district, Matt Haney who often uses Twitter for purposes of communicating with those of us who pay his wages. After being insulted by friends of Matt on Twitter with swearing and name calling, Matt blocked.
With regards to the recent US Court of Appeals ruling of 11 July, upholding a previous ruling by a lower court that public officials are prohibited from excluding individuals from an otherwise open online dialogue because they expressed views with which the official disagrees.
My request is simple- that public officials in San Francisco, specifically Matt Haney, are not allowed to deny me and others our First Amendment rights under the US Constitution.
It is frustrating that I still have not received any response to my prior online complaint.
Stephen espondents cument Submiss-ion· ·
P180 I (BOS)
From: RivamonteMesa, Abigail (BOS) Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2019 1:30 PM To: SOTF, (BOS); Haney, Matt (BOS) Cc: Mahogany, Honey (BOS); Mcdonald, Courtney (BOS); Ng, Wilson (BOS); Calvillo, Angela (BOS); Mchugh, Eileen (BOS) Subject: Re: SOTF- Complaint Filed with the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force - File No. 19078 Attachments: 8.27.19 Sunshine Task Force Reply Haney.pdf
Attached please find Supervisor Haney's response to the below inquiry.
Please feel freeto contact me with questions.
Best, Abigail
From: SOTF, (BOS)
Good Morning:
Matt Haney has been named as a Respondent in the attached complaint filed with the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force. Please respond to the following complaint/request within five business days. The Respondent is required to submit a written response to the allegations including any and all supporting documents, recordings, electronic media, etc., to the Task Force within five (5) business days of receipt of this notice. This is your opportunity to provide a full explanation to allow the Task Force to be fully informed in considering your response prior its meeting. Please include the following information in your response if applicable: 1. List all relevant records with descriptions that have been provided pursuant to the Complainant request. 2. Date the relevant records were provided to the Complainant. 3. Description of the method used, along with any relevant search terms used, to search for the relevant records. 4. Statement/declaration that all relevant documents have been provided, does not exist, or has been excluded. 5. Copy of the original request for records (if applicable). Please refer to the FileNumber when submitting any new information and/or supporting documents pertaining to this complaint. Pf81 The Complainant alleges: Complaint Attached.
Cheryl Leger Assistant Clerk, Board of Supervisors Tel: 415-554-7724
l(fj• 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 Boord 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.
p 12g 2. Board of Supervisors City and County of San Francisco
MATT HANEY
August 26, 2019
RE: SOTF File No. 19078: Complaint Filed by Stephen McGeown
Dear Sunshine Task Force:
This letter is in response to SOTF File No. 19078: Complaint Filed by Stephen McGeown. I previously blocked Mr. McGeown. from my Twitter account. At the time I did not know he was a constituent and did not know his real name. I did not block Mr. McGeown because of his political views.
I have only blocked people from Twitter when their remarks were in clear violation of Twitter's user code of conduct and rose to the level that I believed to be threatening or aggressive towards myself. I have since unblocked Mr. McGeown from my account.
My understanding is that because the Sunshine Task Force does not adjudicate alleged violations of the First Amendment, this matter is not within the Task Force's jurisdiction.
If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact me:
Best,
Matt Haney District 6 Supervisor Matt.Haney@sfgov .org
P183 Leger, Cheryl (BOS)
From: Ng, Wilson (BOS) Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2019 8:45AM To: SOTF, (BOS) Cc: RivamonteMesa, Abigail (BOS); Mahogany, Honey (BOS); Mcdonald, Courtney (BOS); GIVNER, JON (CAT) Subject: RE: SOTF- Complaint Filed with the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force - File No. 19078 Attachments: 19078 Complaint.pdf; SOTF- Complaint Procedure 2018-12-05 FINAL.pdf
I do not. By copy ofthis email, I am bringing this to the attention of DEi staff.
D6 staff- Please see the complaint attached from Stephen McGeown to Matt Haney regarding an alleged Twitter block. I do not believe there is merit regarding failure to respond to a public records request, considering there was no actual request referenced. However, I advise that you provide a response to SOTF regarding usage of third party social media accounts (Twitter) and consult the OffiCe of the City Attorney as necessary.
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
tll)t.;• Click 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 foi 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 othe'r public documents that members of the public may inspect or copy.
From: SOTF, (BOS)
Wilson, Do you know what the status is of this complaint? Than.ks.
Cheryl Leger Assistant Clerk, Board of Supervisors Tel: 415-554-7724
PT84 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 suqmit to the Boord 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: Tuesday, July 30, 2019 9:03AM To: Haney, Matt (BOS)
Good Morning:
Matt Haney has been named as a Respondent in the attached complaint filed with the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force. Please respond to the following complaint/request within five business days.
The Respondent is required to submit a written response to the allegations including any and all supporting documents, recordings, electronic media, etc., to the Task Force within five (5) business days of receipt of this notice. This is your opportunity to provide a full explanation to allow the Task Force to be fully informed in considering your response prior its meeting.
Please include the following information in your response if applicable:
1. List all relevant records with descriptions that have been provided pursuant to the Complainant request. 2. Date the relevant records were provided to the Complainant. 3. Description of the method used, along with any relevant search terms used, to search for the relevant records. 4. Statement/declaration that all relevant documents have been provided, does not exist, or has been excluded. 5. Copy of the original request for records (if applicable).
Please refer to the File Number when submitting any new information and/or supporting documents pertaining to this complaint.
The Complainant alleges: Complaint Attached.
Cheryl Leger Assistant Clerk, Board of Supervisors Pf85 Tel: 415-554-7724
111'0• Click here to complete a Board of Supervisors Customer Service Satisfaction form .
. The Legislative Research Center provides 24-hgur 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 person·al 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.
Pf86 Leger, Cheryl (BOS)
From: SOTF, (BOS) Sent: Friday, August 30, 2019 4:41 PM To: Maria Schulman; Donohue, Virginia (ADM); [email protected]; Heckel, Hank (MYR); Breed, Mayor London (MYR); Breed, London (MYR); Haney, Matt (BOS); Ng, Wilson (BOS); Thomas Picarello; Stewart-Kahn, Abigail (HOM); Ellis, Tanya (HOM); Rudakov, Vladimir (HSA); Brown, Patrice (HSA); Ashley Rhodes; Patterson, Kate (ART); [email protected] Cc: Mahogany, Honey (BOS); Mcdonald, Courtney (BOS); RivamonteMesa, Abigail (BOS); Calvillo, Angela (BOS); Mchugh, Eileen (BOS) Subject: SOTF - Notice of Appearance - Complaint Committee: September 17, 2019, 5:30 p.m.
Good Afternoon:
You are receiving this notice because you are named as a Complainant or Respondent in one of the following complaints scheduled before the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force to: 1) hear the merits of the complaint; 2) issue a determination; and/or 3) consider referrals from a Task Force Committee.
Date: September 17, 2019
Location: City Hall, Room 408
Time: 5:30p.m.
Complainants: Your attendance is required for this meeting/hearing.
Respondents/Departments: Pursuant to Section 67.21 (e) of the Ordinance, the custodian of records or a representative of your department, who can speak to the matter, is required at the meeting/hearing.
Complaints:
File No. 19076: Complaint filed by Maria Schulman against Animal Care and Control, for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Section 67.21, by failing to respond to a request for public records in a timely and/or complete manner.
File No. 19077: Complaint filed by Ahimsa Porter Sumchai against Mayor London Breed for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Section 67.21, by failing to respond to a public records request in a timely and/or complete manner and 67.7 for not posting the Agenda in a timely manner.
File No. 19078: Complaint filed by Stephen McGeown against Matt Haney for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Section 67.21 for failing to respond to a public records request in a timely manner.
File No. 19079: Complaint filed by Thomas Picarello against the Dept. of Homelessness a:nd Supportive Housing for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Section 67.25 for failing to respond to an Immediate Disclosure Request in a timely manner. Leger, Cheryl (BOS)
From: SOTF, (BOS) Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2019 9:03AM To: Haney, Matt (BOS) Cc: Mahogany, Honey (BOS}; Mcdonald, Courtney (BOS); RivamonteMesa, Abigail (BOS); Ng, Wilson (BOS); Calvillo, Angela (BOS); Mchugh,. Eileen (BOS) Subject: SOTF- Complaint Filed with the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force- File No. 19078 Attachments: SOTF- Complaint Procedure 2018-12-05 FINAL.pdf; 19078 Complaint.pdf
Good Morning:
Matt Haney has been named as a Respondent in the attached complaint filed with the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force. Please respond to the following complaint/request within five business days.
The Respondent is required to submit a written response to the allegations including any and all supporting documents, recordings, electronic media, etc., to the Task Force within five (5) business days of receipt of this notice. This is your opportunity to provide a full explanation to allow the Task Force to be fully informed in considering your response prior its meeting.
Please include the following information in your response if applicable:
1 .. List all relevant records with descriptions that have been provided pursuant to the Complainant request. 2. Date the relevant records were provided to the Complainant. 3. Description of the method used, along with any relevant search terms used, to search for the relevant records. 4. Statement/declaration that all relevant documents have been provided, does not exist, or has been excluded. 5. Copy of the original request for records (if applicable).
Please refer to the File Number when submitting any new information and/or supporting documents pertaining to this complaint.
The Complainant alleges: Complaint Attached.
Cheryl Leger Assistant Clerk, Board of Supervisors Tel: 415-554-7724
i!ll.O• 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 ta 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 nat 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
PTBB