October 10, 2007

1.

Approval of minutes of September 10, 2007.

Speakers: None

Motion to approve minutes of September 10, 2007. ( Comstock / Pilpel )

Ayes: Knee, Comstock, Pilpel

Absent: Wolfe

Excused: Craven

2.

07040 & 07042

Progress report regarding speaker assignment process: Order of Determination of Dr Ahimsha Sumchai and Francisco Da Costa v. Supervisor Sophie Maxwell.

Neither the Complainants nor Respondents were present.

Continued, without objection.

3.

07052

Continued hearing on the status of the August 28, 2007, Order of Determination of Allen Grossman and Wayne Lanier vs. the San Francisco District Attorney's Office.

Speakers: Complainants: Wayne Lanier, said he did not receive the records he had requested, and that the department should be found in willful failure. Allen Grossman said he did not receive anything pertaining to the original request.

Respondents: Sandip Patel said the department is completely responsive to the records request, and that the Complainants were informed that the department has no written policy regarding backup and storage of electronic records. Paul Henderson said they could address the Complainants' specific request.

Allen Grossman, in rebuttal, said he had received a copy of a purchase order, which referenced a contract with GRM. However, there is no policy or procedure regarding the backup and storage of electronic records.

Member Pilpel asked Mr. Patel if he had a copy of the GRM contract. Mr. Patel responded that they did not have a copy of the contract but referred Mr. Grossman to the Office of Contract Administration (OCA).

Member Comstock asked if the DA has a written records retention policy.

Member Sheppard asked in all fairness if the Task Force has a records retention schedule and policy. Administrator Darby responded yes. Member Sheppard asked for a copy.

Chair Knee asked the Administrator to provide a copy of the Task Force's Records Retention Schedule and Policy to Member Sheppard.

Member Pilpel asked Mr. Grossman if he has a copy of the GRM contract. Mr. Grossman responded yes, that he received a copy from OCA, but it doesn't identify anything regarding electronic records.

Mr. Henderson said he provided Mr. Grossman with copies of purchase orders for the past 6 years. Member Pilpel asked Mr. Henderson to forward a copy of the latest purchase order to the Task Force. Mr. Henderson said he would.

Member Sheppard said that the since the DA has no written policy, he feels the office has fully responded to the request.

Chair Knee asked the Respondents who sets the policy for storage and backup of electronic records? Mr. Patel responded the IT manager. Chair Knee asked how staff are informed of the policy. Mr. Henderson responded that staff are not informed because backup and storage of e-records are not done by staff but are routinely handled by IT. Mr. Patel said it seems the Task Force is on a fishing expedition, and has veered from the original request.

Member Pilpel asked Mr. Grossman what his desired outcome was. Mr. Grossman responded that he wanted to understand the DA's electronic records system.

Member Sheppard asked Mr. Lanier if having a written electronic records policy from the DA would satisfy his request. Mr. Lanier responded yes. Member Sheppard suggested that a second letter be written asking the DA to provide a written electronic records policy.

Motion to recommend that the Chair of the Task Force write a letter to the District Attorney advising that, in the absence of any written policy on the retention, backup and retrieval of electronic records, the Task Force strongly recommends that such a policy be formulated and propagated throughout the Office of the District Attorney so that future request for relevant records will not take excessive time of the District Attorney or the Task Force. ( Knee / Pilpel )

Member Comstock said the DA has a responsibility to provide records, and that the Complainants are performing a public service and are not harassing the DA. He said the Task Force is not on a fishing expedition, but that it's the Task Force's charge to ensure compliance with the Ordinance.

Ayes: Knee, Comstock, Pilpel

Absent: Wolfe

Excused: Craven

Chair Knee stated he was informed that Member Pilpel will need to leave at 6 PM which will result in the lose of a quorum.

Member Pilpel asked if there is anything more that needs to be done regarding compliance. Chair Knee said that there is nothing further that can be done on the compliance issue other than write the letter.

No further action taken.

4.

07057

Continued hearing on the status of the August 28, 2007, Order of Determination of Jeff Ente vs. Supervisor Aaron Peskin.

Chair Knee informed Committee Members that member Comstock is recused from this item, and therefore they do not have a quorum to proceed. He informed Mr. Ente that this matter will be continued to the November 14, 2007, meeting.

Speakers: Jeff Ente, Complainant, asked if there was any word as to whether a representative of Supervisor Peskin's office will attend.

Chair Knee said the Committee has not heard from the Supervisor's office, and apologized for the inconvenience.

Member Pilpel asked that the matter be continued, and that the Administrator request the Supervisor or his representative to attend.

Continued, without objection.

5.

07059

Continued hearing on the status of the August 28, 2007, Order of Determination of Paul Graham vs. the San Francisco Fire Department.

Speakers: Paul Graham, Complainant, thanked the Task Force for continuing the hearing at last month's meeting. He said he has not heard from the Fire Department.

Rhab Boughn, Respondent, said he has a document to give to Mr. Graham that he feels will satisfy his request. Mr. Graham was handed the document.

Mr. Graham, in rebuttal, said that because of the vagueness of the documen,t he is not certain whether it completely satisfies his request, and that he would need to consult with others.

Member Pilpel asked Mr. Boughn to explain the document. Mr. Boughn responded that the document shows the amount of funds requested and received for two separate periods of time.

Member Pilpel asked Mr. Graham if the explanation provided helped to remove some of the vagueness and satisfies his request. Mr. Graham responded that much of vagueness has been removed and that the information identified on the document may satisfy his request.

No further action taken.

6.

07061 & 07062

Hearing on the status of the September 25, 2007, Order of Determination of Peter Warfield, for the Library Users Association vs. the San Francisco Public Library (Library).

Speakers: Peter Warfield, Complainant, read a portion of the response letter submitted by the Library and said that the department refuses to provide the donor information as instructed in the Order of Determination.

Speakers in support of the Complainant: Allen Grossman said the Library is asserting that the City Attorney's advice trumps the Order of Determination and state law, and show's disrespect for the process. He said he couldn't see how advice from the City Attorney could be followed without a legal opinion. Wayne Lanier said the Library is saying that the Task Force lacks the authority to enforce its ruling.

Sue Blackman, Respondent, said the Library is complying with the advice from the City Attorney (CA) and Section 67.29-6 of the Ordinance.

Mr. Warfield, in rebuttal, said that 67.29-6 does not mean that only the name is to be provided, and that redacting contact information does not allow for verification of the donor.

Member Sheppard said he agrees that the Task force needs to assert itself so that others can't circumvent its decisions. He said he favors the Library's position to not disclose the donor information, but does not agree with basing its stance on oral advice from the City Attorney. He said the CA should be asked to respond to the Task Force.

Member Comstock asked DCA Llorente if the Task Force could request an opinion from the City Attorney. DCA Llorente responded that the Task Force can make the request of a party to the complaint, but that the complainant can ask the Supervisor of Records to provide a written legislative opinion on which it based its oral advice.

Member Pilpel asked if the Library's only dispute is with the disclosure of the home addresses, telephone numbers of donors, and posting of grants on their website. Ms. Blackman responded yes.

Member Pilpel suggested that a follow-up letter be written asking the Library to provide specific rulings, court cases, etc. as the bases for not disclosing the donor information rather than the advice from the CA.

Sue Blackman responded that the Library's decision was not based strictly on the CA's advice, but on its own policy, the Ordinance and its understanding of the law, and that the Library had already cited some cases in its September 19, 2007, letter to the Task Force.

Chair Knee said he would write a letter to the Library, as Member Pilpel suggested, asking them to support their position by citing the law and relevant cases.

DCA Llorente said Sections 67.29-6, and 67.1 (g) of the Ordinance support the Library's position by not requiring disclosure of the home addresses of the donors, and allows for privacy rights.

Continued, without objection.

7.

Possible amendments to Sections 67.30 to 67A.1 of the Sunshine Ordinance and subsequent sections as time permits.

Sec 67.30 The Sunshine Ordinance Task Force.

Sec 67.31 Responsibility for Administration.

Sec 67.32 Provision of Services to other Agencies; Sunshine Required.

Sec 67.33 Department Head Declaration.

Sec 67.34 Willful Failure Shall Be Official Misconduct.

Sec 67.35 Enforcement Provisions.

Sec 67.36 Sunshine Ordinance Supercedes Other Local Laws.

Sec 67.37 Severability.

Continued, without objection.

8.

Administrator's report.

The Administrator made the report

Speakers: None

9.

Public comment on items not listed on the agenda.

Speakers: Louis Dillon said the Task Force lacks "teeth" to enforce the Ordinance. He urged the Task Force to find ways to obtain the authority to enforce the Ordinance.

Allen Grossman said he will propose procedural changes to the Task Force that would give complainants the opportunity to correct the record after respondents have been questioned by the Task Force.

Peter Warfield said he agrees with Mr. Grossman that complainants should be allowed to respond to statements made by respondents. He thanked the Task Force for sticking up for the public, and indicted that the agenda for item #3 through 6 says that there are no attachments, but that there are attachments for those items.

Chair Knee apologized for the error on the agenda.

10.

Announcements, questions and future agenda items from CAC members.

Speakers: None

Member Comstock asked DCA Llorente if he can remove Member Wolfe from the Committee today? DCA Llorente said he could, but that they still could not continue the meeting, and that a quorum would still require three out of four members. Member Comstock said that he would leave things as they are.

Member Sheppard asked if it would be appropriate to have a discussion regarding conflicts with the advice from the City Attorney to various agencies regarding Orders of Determination with the committee or the full Task Force. Chair Knee responded "The full Task Force."

Chair Knee, moved to adjourn. Without objection.

Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 6:02 p.m.

Next regular meeting: Wednesday, November 14, 2007

This meeting has been audio recorded and is on file in the office of the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force