September 25, 2007

Seat 1

Erica Craven (Vice Chair)

Seat 8

Bruce Wolfe

Seat 2

Richard Knee

Seat 9

Hanley Chan

Seat 3

Sue Cauthen

Seat 10

Nick Goldman

Seat 4

Vacant

Seat 11

Marjorie Ann Williams

Seat 5

Kristin Chu

Seat 6

Doug Comstock (Chair)

Ex-officio

Angela Calvillo

Seat 7

David Pilpel

Ex-officio

Harrison Sheppard

a.

b.

Approval of minutes of July 24, 2007.

Public Comment: None

Motion to approve the July 24, 2007 minutes.( Pilpel / Chan )

Ayes: Craven, Knee, Cauthen, Chu, Comstock, Pilpel, Wolfe, Chan, Goldman, Williams

Approval of minutes of August 28, 2007.

The chair requested that the minutes of July 24, 2007 be continued to the next meeting.

Motion to continue the August 28, 2007 minutes. Without objection.

Public comment: Peter Warfield said he was impressed with the quality of the minutes, but it had to be uniform throughout the document.

Member Pilpel inquired about a letter Chair Comstock sent to Mayor Newsom thanking him for the appointment of Member Sheppard. Mr. Comstock said the letter was sent. Mr. Pilpel requested that the letter be included in the next packet.

Discussion re: 071051_Charter Amendment - Minimum qualifications for members of City bodies that oversee and administer election, campaign finance, lobbying, conflict of interest, open meeting and public records, sponsored by Supervisor Alioto-Pier.

Speakers: none

Member Pilpel proposed sending a letter to the Board of Supervisors expressing the Task Force's position on the proposed Charter Amendment. Member Knee added the letter should also highlight that the Charter should promote public participation and not otherwise. Member Wolfe questioned if subtext 4 of the amendment was constitutional.

Member Sheppard said the requirements would better qualify a candidate to serve the city but doubted its constitutionality.

Motion to send letter. ( Comcast / Cauthen )

Public Comment: Patrick Monett-Shaw urged the Task Force to educate the public before Nov. 6 why the measure was unnecessary.

Kimo Crossman wanted the Task Force to ask for Mr. Ernie Llorente's opinion on its constitutionality and include it with the letter.

Peter Warfield referred to the Sunshine Ordinance and reminded it of its mandate.

Member Harrison said that the letter should at least indicate that the Task Force has expressed doubts about the constitutionality of this measure.

Motion to send letter. Same house, same call

Report from the Complaint Committee: Meeting as a committee of the whole.

Member Cauthen made the report.

a.

07061

Determination of jurisdiction of complaint filed by Peter Warfield, for the Library Users Association, against the San Francisco Library for alleged inadequate posting and maintenance on the website of information about donations to the library.

Speakers: Peter Warfield, Complainant, referred to pages 48,49, 88 and 89 of the packet to indicate where the library had violated Sunshine Ordinance 67.29 (2) and 67.29 (6).

Sue Blackman, Respondent, said the library does not contest jurisdiction.

Public Comment: None

Motion to accept jurisdiction. ( Pilpel / Chu )

Ayes: Craven, Knee, Cauthen, Chu, Comstock, Pilpel, Wolfe, Chan, Goldman, Williams

Absent: Comstock

b.

07062

Determination of jurisdiction of complaint filed Peter Warfield, for the Library Users Association, against the San Francisco Library for alleged inadequate response to an Immediate Disclosure Request of August 9, 2007.

Speakers: Peter Warfield, Complainant, referred to pages 138 and a139 of the packet and indicated how the library had violated the Sunshine Ordinance.

Sue Blackman, Respondent, said the library does not contest jurisdiction.

Public Comment: None

Member Pilpel had a question for Mr. Warfield and asked him to approach the speaker's table when Chair Craven, referring to the Rule of the Chair, denied the request.

Motion to override. ( Pilpel / Cauthen )

Motion to accept jurisdiction. ( Goldman / Craven )

Ayes: Craven, Knee, Cauthen, Chu, Comstock, Pilpel, Wolfe, Chan, Goldman, Williams

Noes: Chu, Goldman

Absent: Comstock

Member Pilpel wanted to know why the complainant's document was dated the 27^th whereas the footer showed the 13^th. Mr Warfiled said the date in the footer was a mistake.

Motion to accept jurisdiction. ( Goldman / Craven )

Ayes: Craven, Knee, Cauthen, Chu, Comstock, Pilpel, Wolfe, Chan, Goldman, Williams

Absent: Comstock

07038, 07043 & 07044

Continued: Public Hearing, complaint filed by Anonymous Person against the Entertainment Commission for alleged failure to provide requested records and to release information. (action item) (30 min) (attachment)

Bob Davis, Respondent, was not able to attend because of a family emergency.

Motion to continue with request for Respondent to provide written response before next meeting. ( Cauthen / Wolfe )

Ayes: Craven, Knee, Cauthen, Chu, Comstock, Pilpel, Wolfe, Chan, Goldman, Williams

07056

Continued: Public Hearing, complaint filed by Myrna Lim against the Ethics Commission for alleged violation of Sunshine Ordinance §67.21 for failure to provide requested records. (action item) (30 min) (attachment)

Doug Comstock recused himself.

Speakers: Myrna Lim, Complainant, said she was informed by the Ethics Commission that she was in technical violation of a statute but was not given the opportunity to review the document that was the basis of the finding because it was marked confidential. She questioned the commission's stand on confidentiality because she was given a letter that was marked confidential. The Task Force was reminded that its members could be under investigation by the Ethics Commission and not know about it.

John St. Croix, Respondent, said the Charter dictates that the Ethics Commission follows State laws on confidentiality. The Sunshine Ordinance, he said, may say some State laws are not applicable, but the commission has to abide by the Charter.

Ms. Lim in rebuttal, said the commission has been investigating her for three years without a finding for probable cause, which means that the massive information collected was wrongfully obtained. The letter, she said, mentioned sufficient evidence to prove the technical violation. She wants to see the evidence.

Public Comment: Alan Grossman said looking at the commission's letter, he believes that numerous documents within Ms. Lim's file are not exempt. He said the commission has to review all documents, apply all the exemptions and then provide the redacted version.

Kimo Crossman said there were questionable exemptions related to the Sunshine Ordinance.

Member Sheppard asked Mr. St. Croix how Ms. Lim could be in violation of a statute that did not exist during the time the violation was alleged to have occurred. Mr. St. Croix responded that the statute existed under a different statute and that he will provide a copy to the Task Force.

Deputy City Attorney Ernie Llorente said the information that was requested was not exempt and should be released especially if the file is closed.

Motion to continue with direction to DCA Llorente to please provide a detailed analysis regarding the status of the Ethics Commission and its ability to withhold or not withhold records under State law and/or the Charter. ( Wolfe / Chu )

Ayes: Knee, Cauthen, Chu, Comstock, Wolfe, Chan, Williams

Noes: Craven, Pilpel, Goldman

Recused: Comstock

Chair Craven announces a recess at 6:34. The Task Force is back in session at 6:44.

07061

Public Hearing, complaint filed by Peter Warfield, for the Library Users Association, against the San Francisco Library for alleged inadequate posting and maintenance on the website of information about donations to the library.

On consolidation:

Speakers: Peter Warfield, Complainant, said the first complaint is about what was on the website versus what should be, and the site's maintenance. The second complaint deals with information requests and its aftermath. They cover different parts of the ordinance and overlap in some cases.

Sue Blackman, Respondent, said the complaints are duplicative and should be consolidated.

Motion to consolidated with complaint #07062 ( Cauthen / Craven )

Ayes: Craven, Knee, Cauthen, Chu, Comstock, Williams

Noes: Pilpel, Wolfe, Goldman

Excused: Chan

Speakers: Peter Warfield, Complainant, said the website did not have full disclosure as required by the Ordinance, a current major donor's name was dropped after being listed for three years and the library has to post and provide money or goods and services that the City allows to be collected. The library also did not provide information on outside funding and who managed the monies collected.

Alan Grossman said the library was redacting information voluntarily provided by donors. That information, he said, was about disclosure revelant to possible or questionable illegal activity. The designated custodians of public records claim, he added, was about a series of procedures that create several levels of obstacles.

Sue Blackman, Respondent, said that all information requested was provided. However, personal addresses, telephone numbers and e-mail addresses or donors were redacted from the forms. She acknowledge that the website was not updated in a timely manner, but now it is current; that the library does not post grants.

Mr. Warfield, in rebuttal, said that the library should be found in violation although they have take corrective measures.

Kimo Crossman said that the information on the donor forms or not confidential and donors have no expectation of privacy. He said that e-mail addresses can't be redacted, and urged that the library be found in violation.

Member Pilpel said that he doesn't agree with Mr. Crossman's statement, and is not certain whether the donor information is subject to the gift disclosure requirement.

Member Sheppard asked Mr. Crossman to clarify his statement regarding the right to redact. Mr. Crossman responded that he statement was clear.

Member Knee asked Ms. Blackman if it was possible adding an option on the donor forms allowing donors to determine whether to disclose or not disclose their personal information. Ms. Blackman said that the form can be revised to add the option.

Member Craven said that the only unresolved issues is the redaction of home addresses from donor forms. Home addresses are something that can and should be disclosed.

Member Wolfe asked Ms. Blackman about the use of the word "gift" in her letter on page 116 of the packet. Ms. Blackman responded that the term gift was taken from the Good Government Guide

Member Craven said that the intent of Section 67.29-6 is to track gifts that go under the radar

Member Sheppard asked Ms. Blackman if her citing of CPRA in her letter was provided with advice from the City Attorney's office. Ms. Blackman said yes. Member Sheppard said that he can't see how the Task Force can find the Library in violation when they are following the advice of the City attorney. He said that the Task Force needs a higher argument to "trump" the City Attorney.

Member Cauthen said that the Good Government Guide is just a guide, but that the Sunshine Ordinance is law and supercedes the City Attorney.

Member Williams said that the City Attorney acts to protect the City, and that they are not god's or the law.

Member Knee said that the Task Force has an attorney to help them make a determination.

Member Sheppard said that for the Library to charged with a violation for following the advice of the City Attorney poses a problem for all City departments.

Chair Comstock said that the voters gave the Task Force the responsibility to ensure compliance with the Ordinance; that they may or may not agree with the City Attorney. However, it is the Task Force's and not the City Attorney's job.

Member Cauthen said that the Ordinance is written for people who can read, and that in addition to State the Sunshine Ordinance was written by the people and for the people.

Member Craven moved to find a violation of Sections 67.29-2, 67.29-6, and 67.21

Member Wolfe said that he has an issue with the advice provided by the City Attorney, and that the Task Force can determine if the CA provided proper council.

Member Pilpel said that he will not vote in favor of a violation.

Member Cauthen proposed an amendment to the motion that acknowledges the corrective measures taken by the library.

Chair Comstock asked Mr. Warfield if what he heard in the Members discussions and the proposed motion is what he is seeking? Mr. Warfield responded yes, but that grant information is still missing from the web. He said that the Task Force should not allow secrecy of donor information, and that the library wants to prevent the freedom of assembly. Mr. Warfield said that there is no difference between a gift and a grant, and that the Task Force is the only body available to prevent a dictatorship by the City Attorney. He urged the finding of a violation.

Member Cauthen disclosed her involvement with the library for many years and that she founded the Library CAC, which is an independent body that advises the BOS about the library. She said that she feels her knowledge of the library helps her to come out with a good conclusion, and that she can discuss the issue dispassionately.

Member Knee asked for the calling of the question.

Although the San Francisco Public Library has acknowledge and has taken corrective measures to correct most of the allegations the Task Force moves to find a violation of Sections 67.29-2, 67.29-6, and 67.21 for failure to promptly update the website, failure to adequately disclose, on the website, the monies that had been provided, and failure to provide requested records by not providing the home addresses of donors. ( Craven / Knee )

Ayes: Craven, Knee, Cauthen, Chu, Comstock, Wolfe, Goldman, Williams

Noes: Pilpel

Excused: Chan

Member Pilpel asked if the Task Force's interpretation of Section 67.29-6 meant that if he were to purchase books from the Friends of the Public Library or some other entity like the Park Trust, that if aggregate value is more than $100, the entity would be required to seek his personal contact information and report it? Member Craven said that the discussion on that matter has not be exhausted.

Member Cauthen said that she don't know if it's a donation if you receive value in return.

07062

Public Hearing, complaint filed by Peter Warfield, for the Library Users Association, against the San Francisco Library for alleged inadequate response to an Immediate Disclosure Request of August 9, 2007.

Previously consolidated with complaint #07061

Report: Compliance and Amendments Committee: meeting of September 10, 2007.

Member Knee made the report.

He reported that the committee is working with 1) Supervisor Maxwell regarding adopting some reasonable steps to ensure that speakers, at committee meetings are treated equably, 2) the District Attorney regarding setting policy regarding retention of records and provision of public documents, and 3) that he will write a letter to Supervisor Peskin regarding the destruction of e-mails and the attempt to retrieve destroyed data.

Member Pilpel asked for a confirmation on the meeting date.

Member Knee said that the meeting is Wednesday, October 10, 2007.

Member Wolfe noted the need for a correction to a typo in the minutes on page 282, paragraph 3, regarding the use of the word options rather than opinion.

Chair Comstock said that the comments from Rohan Lane regarding the expenses to be incurred will be discussed in Section 67.14.

Speakers: Jeff Ente said that he is concerned that regarding his matter the Committee will miss something. He suggested that additional search criteria should be identified and in the letter to Supervisor Peskin such as red mass parakeet, foraging, and sunflower seed.

Member Craven said that she would defer that the Member Knee since he will be writing the letter.

Member Comstock said that he's also heard the term conures used.

Member Pilpel said that Mr. Bonds for the Fire Department contacted him about Mr. Graham's request, and he provided him with information to help further the Committee's requests.

Member Sheppard asked that the minutes of today's meeting on item #6 include the question raised by Member Pilpel. He said that misinterpretation and application of the Task Forces determination could cause the City millions of dollars in donations from donors who learned that by donating to various non-profit City projects that they would be required to provide their street address.

07031

Continued: Progress report regarding steps to prevent loss of data: Order of Determination of Patrick Monette-Shaw v. Department of Public Health.

Speakers: Patrick Monette-Shaw, Complainant, requested the Task Force issue a new Order of Determination that indicates data should be saved on the Laguna Honda network server and not on an employee's drive where data could be lost once that person leaves employment. Network mapping, he said, should not be an issue.

Clerk Rustom notified the Task Force that a DPH email said representatives would not be present at the meeting as it had provided all the information and had made the efforts needed by the Order of Determination.

Public Comment: Peter Warfield, citing 67.21 (e) of the Sunshine Ordinance, urged members to insist that departments send representatives.

Kimo Crossman said the lack of attendance by officials is not new and has yet to see an IT official from certain departments explain its record archival and retrieval process.

Member Wolfe said it would help members if the IT persons came and described their methods to get a basic understanding of the process.

No action taken. Without objection.

Discussion to consider changing the name of the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force.

Member Cauthen asked if member's heard about some type of "baggage" associated with the word commission?

Member Craven said that DCA Llorente had provided some information regarding the matter, and that changing the name to a commission would not alter the Task Force's appointment process or powers. That the powers and appointment of Members would be controlled by provisions of the ordinance. So there is no down side to making that change.

Member Cauthen said that she vaguely remembers hearing that be called a commission would limit what they could do.

Member Sheppard said that the term Task Force is misleading

Member Pilpel urged retaining the name Sunshine Ordinance as the first part of the name.

Member Wolfe said that it was time for the Ordinance to become a law.

Chair Comstock suggested that the name be changed to Sunshine Commission or Council, and that the Ordinance become a charter.

Member Knee suggested keeping the language, and said that becoming a charter would affect their appointment.

Member Williams said that the term Sunshine is well known, but more teeth and power is needed for the Task Force. She asked Member Sheppard to assist the Task Force with obtaining more authority and ensuring open government.

Member Sheppard said that he spent hours trying to make the Task Force as effective as possible to achieve what is asked for.

Member Goldman said that a title other than Task Force is needed because it refers to a temporary body and they are a permanent body. That he thought of the term Open Government, but don't mind keeping the name Sunshine Ordinance if members want if for sentimental reasons.

Speakers: None

Motion to change the name of the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force to Sunshine Commission. ( Craven / Cauthen )

Ayes: Craven, Knee, Cauthen, Chu, Comstock, Wolfe, Goldman, Williams

Noes: Pilpel

Excused: Chan

Possible amendments to Sections 67.13 to 67.18 of the Sunshine Ordinance and subsequent sections as time permits.

1. Sec 67.13 Barriers to Attendance Prohibited.
2. Sec 67.14 Tape Recording, Filming and Still Photography.
3. Sec 67.15 Public Testimony.
4. Sec 67.16 Minutes
5. Sec 67.17 Public Comment by Members of Policy Bodies.
6. Sec 67.18 Supervisor of Public Forums

Member Wolfe informed members that he must leave at 8:30 PM.

Member Chu informed members that she must leave at 9:15.

Speakers: None

Section 67.13 was discussed, and the Administrator recorded recommended amendments.

Member Sheppard asked to be excused, due to the lateness of the hour and because he is not in the best of health, and asked that the discussion of his letter in item #12 be deferred to the next full Task Force meeting.

Without objection.

Member Sheppard suggested a discussion regarding the deadlines for submission of materials to give the Task Force time to review the packet.

Motion to defer to the Compliance and Amendments Committee for discussion Sections 67.13 to 67.18. ( Chu / Goldman )

Ayes: Cauthen, Chu, Pilpel, Goldman, Williams, Comstock

Noes: Craven, Knee

Excused: Chan, Wolfe

Discussion re: the Task Force's draft 2006 Annual Report and memo of Member Harrison Sheppard.

Speakers: None

Member Pilpel asked Members to submit any suggestions to the Administrator

Member Chu said that she has comments that she will send to the Administrator.

Chair Comstock said that there need to be a report to the Board of Supervisors regarding the problems that the Task Force is having, such as e-mail retention, digital storage, etc.

Member Pilpel suggested that a section be added regarding practical problems encountered, and that the information on Committees be reduced.

Member Williams suggested that the Task Force requests a hearing before the Board.

Chair Comstock urged member to read Member Sheppard's memorandum.

Member Pilpel asked the Task Force to sever the annual report from Member Sheppard's letter so that they will be two separate items at next month's meeting.

Without objection.

Administrator's Report.

The Administrator made the report.

Member Pilpel asked the Administrator if the complaint by Mr. Pitts was against an 12L organization. The Administrator responded yes.

Speakers: None

Public comment for items not listed on the agenda. Public comment to be held at 5:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as possible.

Speakers: Patrick Monett-Shaw, referring to testimony provided earlier for File No. 07031, wanted the Task Force to follow up and evaluate if DPH changed its records management and maintenance procedures.

Kimo Crossman said the wait-and-see approach taken on the Progress Report in the Patrick Monett-Shaw vs. DPH case was not acceptable, as it was the Task Force's responsibility to ensure the public's right to information.

Alan Grossman lamented that the Task Force had wasted several minutes on an agenda that belonged to a different committee; the public was at an disadvantage because departments file long and lengthy responses close to deadline giving them no time to counter respond; the author of a department's response should be identified; and that all parties before the Task Force be given an equal opportunity.

Ming Lee said equal time should be given to all parties otherwise it would be a waste of time.

Peter Warfield said when the Task Force questions a party and a response is received, the opposite party should be given equal time to ensure the information is correct.

Member Sheppard commented that he is an advocate for transparency in government and a supporter for identifying the source of documents. He also said he would like to discuss later in the evening the timeliness in the distribution of supporting documents for a hearing.

Announcements, questions, and future agenda items from the Task Force.

Speakers: None

Adjournment

The meeting was adjourned at 8:52 p.m.