August 10, 2004

1.

Approval of minutes of July 20, 2004. Approved as written (Nickliss/Parker)

Public comment from Peter Warfield requesting that the public comment that he made under Item 6 in the July 20 Minutes be expanded to include his comment that the considerable efforts that the Complaint Committee goes through in reviewing complaints and what sections are applicable be presented to the full Sunshine Task Force.

2.

Determination of jurisdiction of complaint of Peter Warfield against the San Francisco Public Library Commission for alleged inadequate minutes that were published earlier this year.

Peter Warfield spoke in support of his complaint.

Public comment from David Pilpel stating that for the purpose of Section 4.218 he is a friend of Michael Housh, Public Library Commission Secretary, who could not be here due to a schedule conflict. He spoke in support of the San Francisco Public Library Commission’s right to provide summaries of minutes as they see fit. Individuals under Section 67.16 have the option to provide a summary of not more than 125 words for public comment and that the complainant had not done so. Anyone may review tapes of public meetings for more detailed information--audiotapes are retained according to Sunshine Law requirements. He recommended that the Complaint Committee deny this complaint based on the merits.

Motion adopted approving jurisdiction of this complaint as outlined in the jurisdictional letter (Parker/Nickliss).

3.

Determination of jurisdiction of complaint of Peter Warfield against the San Francisco Public Library regarding alleged failure to produce records.

Peter Warfield spoke in support of his complaint.

Public comment from David Pilpel speaking in support of the Public Library’s position on this complaint. He recommended that the Committee ask for a copy of the Public Library’s written procedures for public records requests to be included in the full Task Force packet and that the jurisdictional letter be supplemented with a recommendation as to whether the complaint is sustainable based on presented facts.

Motion adopted approving jurisdiction of this complaint as outlined in the jurisdictional letter (Nickliss/Parker).

4.

Determination of jurisdiction of complaint of Peter Warfield against the San Francisco Public Library for alleged failure of a timely response to an Immediate Disclosure Request and regarding expected redaction of contact information.

Peter Warfield spoke in support of his complaint.

Public comment from David Pilpel speaking in support of the Public Library and questioning the validity of the complainant’s Immediate Disclosure Request and the redaction process. More information is needed and the Committee should request a copy of the Immediate Disclosure Request and a copy of the response from the Library.

Motion adopted approving jurisdiction of this complaint based on both allegations of the complainant. (Parker/Nickliss)

5.

Determination of jurisdiction of complaint of John Kelly against the Department of Building Inspection for alleged failure to respond in a timely manner to a written statement as to the existence, quantity, form and nature of certain public records.

The complainant withdrew his complaint as stated in his letter received August 10, 2004.

Public comment from David Pilpel requesting a copy of the withdrawal letter. A copy was given to him at the meeting.

6.

Preliminary report by Deputy City Attorney on his efforts to develop materials to assist the Task Force in making factual and legal determinations. (Ernie Llorente)

Deputy City Attorney Llorente presented a memorandum/basic form to assist the Complaint Committee in making a determination of jurisdiction of a complaint to present to the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force to help them base their conclusions.

Public comment from Peter Warfield asking for clarification as to who would be filling out the form and the basis that would be used for filling out the form.

Public comment from David Pilpel stating that the form would be an improvement to the current process but would not want to limit the Deputy City Attorney’s ability to contact complainants or departments for more information. He recommended adding "Prior decisions from the Task Force on relevant issues" to the form. He recommended that the memorandum process precede the Complaint Committee hearing and that the merits of the complaint be decided rather than the jurisdiction issue. Section 67.30C of the Good Government Guide was quoted.

Motion adopted to make this item part of the Complaint Committee report and to place on the Sunshine Task Force agenda as a discussion and action item (Nickliss/Parker).

7.

Discussion of work program for Complaint Committee.

Member Nickliss requested that Page 3, Number 8 of the Public Complaint Procedure be mentioned to the full Task Force starting with "Consistent with the language and spirit of the SF Sunshine Ordinance to provide the most open government possible…."

Public comment from David Pilpel quoting the Good Government Guide Section 67.30C and 67.21E regarding the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force not informing municipal offices with enforcement powers under this Ordinance and Brown Act when violations are found and should be in the future.

Public comment from Peter Warfield regarding an addendum that is not consistent with the Complaint Procedure and is unclear what the Complaint procedure is. He questioned when complaints should be turned in to the Task Force to assist the Deputy City Attorney in filling out the forms properly.

No action taken.

8.

Public Comment for items not listed on agenda.

Member Parker introduced Alan Wong, a student delegate to the School Board who is interested in serving in the ex-officio seat as a member of Youth and would be submitting an application.

Public comment from David Pilpel regarding questions about his conduct. He stated that his comments made on the previous items are subject for further review and change if more information is presented.

Public comment from Peter Warfield stating that it is mentioned in the Sunshine Ordinance that the members of a body may answer questions from the public.