D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D - City and County of ...

File No. 19047

SUNSHINE ORDINANCE TASK FORCE AGENDA PACKET CONTENTS LIST

Item No. 5

Compliance and Amendments Committee Date: January 26, 2021

D D D

D D D D D D

OTHER

D D D D D D D D D

Petition/Complaint Memorandum - Deputy City Attorney Petitioner/Complainant Supporting Documents RespondenfsResponse Public Correspondence Order of Determination Minutes Administrator's Report No Attachments

Page: Page:_ Page:_ Page:-" Page:_ Page:_

Completed by: _ _--=cc~. =Le~gOL,;;;e;..;...r ______ Date 1/21/21

*An asterisked item represents the cover sheet to a document that exceeds 25 pages. The complete document is in the file.

P679

SUNSIDNE ORDINANCE TASK FORCE

DATE DEC)(JtQN~ISSUED October )2Cl~tf

"" f

City Hall 1 Dr Carlton B. Goodlett Place, Room 244

San Francisco, CA 94102-4689 Tel. No. (415) 554-7724 Fax No. (415) 554-7854 TTD/TTYNo. (415) 554-5227

ORDER OF DETERMINATION. October 24, 2019

CASE T ~1Anonymous v. Mayor London Breed, Hank Heckel and the Office of the Mayor . ' File No.)~~,;

FACTS OF THE CASE

The following petition/complaint was filed with the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force (SOTF):

Complaint .filed by Anonymous against Mayor London Breed, Hank Heckel and the Office of the Mayor for allegedly violating Administrative Code, (Sunshine Ordinance) Sections 67.21 and 67.26 and 67.27 and Government Code (CPRA) 6253.9, 6253, and 6255, by failing to respond to a request for public records in a timely and/or complete manner.

HEARING ON THE COMPLAINT

On August 20, 2019, the Complaint Committee acting in its capacity to hear petitions/complaints heard the matter.

Anonymous (Petitioner) provided a summary of the complaint and requested the Committee to find a violation. Anonymous stated that he requested the Mayor's calendar including the metadata. Anonymous stated that the Mayor's calendar is considered a public record which should have been provided. Anonymous stated that the City Attorney memo disputed what kind format of the calendar is in. Anonymous stated that metadata and headers are important to the works of an investigative journalist. Anonymous stated that he wants to know who actually invited the Mayor to meetings and events and that information can be provided in metadata.

Hank Heckel (Mayor's Office) (Respondent), provided a summary of the department's position. Mr. Heckel stated that the Mayor's office received the IDR on May 8 and responded on May 9. Mr. Heckel stated that the Mayor's Office provided their Prop G calendar which included event times, general attendees and the nature of the event. Mr. Heckel stated that all information was provided in pdf format to avoid compromising the integrity of the record. Mr. Heckel stated

P680

that those records did not provide email addresses of invitees, conference call numbers and dial information which is subject to privilege. Mr. Heckel stated that the Mayor's Office relies on advices provided by the Information Technology Department and the City Attorney's Office regarding metadata. Mr. Heckel stated that there are security risks associated with providing this information.

The Committee found that the SOTF has jurisdiction, find that the requested records are pubic and referred the matter to the SOTF for hearing.

On October 20, 2019, the SOTF held a hearing to review the recommendation from Committee and/or to review the merits of the petition/complaint.

Anonymous (Petitioner) provided a summary of the complaint and requested the Committee to find a violation. Anonymous provided an overview of the submitted presentation. Anonymous stated that the Office of the Mayor refused to provide documents in the requested format and metadata, objected to the redactions to the calendar and stated that the ICS version of the calendar was not provided. Anonymous stated that the Office of the Mayor did not provide the Mayor's nonProp G or 2nd calendar account until months later, and those non-Prop G calendars are public records.

Hank Heckel (Mayor's Office) and Michael Makstman (Chief Information Security Officer) (Respondent), provided a summary of the department's position. Mr. Heckel referenced California Government Code, Sections6252.9(f) and 6254.19, and Sunshine Ordinance, Section 67.21 (I). Mr. Heckel stated that the format requested is not easily generated and would also create a security risk. Mr. Makstman provided information regard metadata and possible security risks.

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSION OF LAW

Based on the testimony and evidence presented, the SOTF found that Mayor London Breed, Hank Heckel and the Office of the Mayor violated Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Section(s) 67.21, 67.26 and 67.27.

P681

DECISION AND ORDER OF DETERMINATIONS

On October 2, 2019, Member Yankee, seconded by Member Cate, moved to find that Mayor London Breed, Hank Heckel and the Office of the Mayor violated Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Sections 67.21, 67.26 and 67.27, by failing to provide records in a timely and/or complete manner, keep withholdings to a minimum, and justify the withholding of records.

The motion PASSED by the following vote:

Ayes: 7 - Yankee, Martin, LaHood, Cate, Hyland, .J. Wolf, B. Wolfe Noes: 0 - None Absent: 2 - Cannata, Chopra Excused: 2 - Tesfai, Hinze

n w~

Bruce Wolfe, hair Sunshine Ordinance Task Force

cc. Anonymous (Petitioner/Complainant) Hank Heckel, Office of the Mayor (Respondent)

P682

le er, Cheryl (BOS)

From: Sent: To: Subject:

Google Forms <[email protected]> Friday, May 10, 2019 9:19 PM SOTF, (BOS) New Response Complaint Form

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 Office of Mayor or Commission

Name of individual contacted at Department or Commission

Alleged Violation

Please describe alleged violation

Name

London N. Breed (Breed) in her official capacity as Mayor, Hank Heckel (Heckel) in his official capacity as Compliance Officer for Office of Mayor

Public Records

See full details at: https://cdn.muckrock.com/outbound request attachments/Anonymous 2859385/72902/SFMayor-Calendar-SOTF-Appeal-72902.pdf (also emailed to SOTF)

Anonymous

PS83

Email

If anonymous, please let us know how to contact you. Thank you.

[email protected]

Anonymous- please use [email protected] .

Sent via Google Forms Email

Pff84

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY

PEDER J. V. THOREEN

TO:

DENNIS J. HERRERA

City Attorney Deputy City Attorney

Direct Dial: Email:

MEMORANDUM PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL

( 415 i 554-3846 [email protected]

FROM:

Sunshine Ordinance Task Force

Peder J. V. Thoreen Deputy City Attorney

DATE: June 13, 2019

RE: Complaint No. 19047: Anonymous v. Mayor London Breed and Hank Heckel, Office of the Mayor

COMPLAINT

An anonymous complainant ("Complainant") alleges that Mayor London Breed and Hank Heckel, of the Office of the Mayor (collectively, "Respondents"), violated public records laws.

COMPLAINANT FILES COMPLAINT

On May 13, 2019, Complainant filed this complaint with the Task Force, alleging that Respondent failed to provide complete responses to Complainant's request for public records, in· violation of Administrative Code sections 67.26 and 67.27, and Government.Code sections 6253, 6253.9, and 6255. ·

JURISDICTION

Mayor London Breed and Hank Heckel work within the Office of the Mayor, which is subject to the provisions of the Sunshine Ordinance and the California Public Record~ Act ("CPRA") regarding records requests. Respondents do no dispute jurisdiction.

APPLICABLE STATUTORY SECTION(S)

Section 67 of the San Francisco Administrative Code:

• Section 67 .21 governs responses to a public records request in general. • Section 67.26 provides that withholding of public records shall be kept to a minimum. • Section 67.27 sets forth requirements for justifying the withholding of information. • Section 67.29-5 requires that certain officials maintain calendars that reflect certain,

specified information.

Sections 6253, 6235.9, and 6255 of the Cal. Govt .. Code (CPRA)

• Section 6253(c) governs the timeframe in which general requests for public documents must be honored.

• Section 6235.9 governs the production of public documents in electronic format.

• Section 6255 requires justifications for the withholding of records.

Fox PLAZA . 1390 MARKET STREET, 7TH FLOOR . SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94102-5408 RECEPTION: (415) 554-3800 · FACSIMILE: (415) 437-4644

n:\codenf\as20l 9\960024 l \01368224.docx

P685


TO: DATE: PAGE: RE:

MEMORANDUM PRIVILEGED·& CONFIDENTIAL

Sunshine Ordinance Task Force June 13, 2019 2 Complaint No. 19047: Anonymous v. Mayor London Breed and Hank Heckel, Office of the Mayor

APPLICABLE CASE LAW

• None

BACKGROUND

On May 8, 2019, Complainant requested Respondents to immediately disclose:

an electronic copy, in the original electronic format, with all calendar item headers, email addresses, metadata, timestamps, attachments, appendices, exhibits, and inline images, except those explicitly exempted by the Ordinance, of the Mayor's calendar, with all items, from April 28 to May 4, 2019 (inclusive).

Although as indicated Complainant initially requested the responsive items in their original format, Complainant went on to state: "if you choose to convert calendar items, for example, to PDF or printed format, to easily redact them, you must ensure that you have preserved the full content of the original calendar item record ... , which contains many detailed headers beyond the ones generally printed out." ·

On May 9, 2019, Respondents provided calendar entries for the dates requested. Those documents were produced in PDF format for "ease of transferability and accessibility, consistent with Cal. Gov. Code 6253.9(a)(l)." 1 Respondents noted that, pursuant to 6253.9(f), they were not required to provide electronic records "in an electronic format that would jeopardize or compromise the security or integrity of the original record," and Respondents contended that using a PDF format furthered those ends.2

Complainant raises two primary contentions. First, Complainant contends that the response was incomplete because

the original electronic format of the Mayor's calendar may contain substantial additional information (such email addresses, conference call numbers, actual

1 Cal. Gov. Code 6253.9(a)(l) reads: "(a) Unless otherwise prohibited by law, any agency that has information that constitutes an identifiable public record not exempt from disclosure pursuant to this chapter that is in an electronic format shall make that information available in an electronic format when requested by any person and, when applicable, shall comply with the following: (1) The agency shall make the information available in any electronic format in which it holds the information." 2 Cal. Gov. Code 6253.9(f) reads: "(f) Nothing in this section shall be construed to require the public agency to release an electronic record in the electronic form in which it is held by the agency if its release would jeopardize or compromise the security or integrity of the original record or of any proprietary software in which it is maintained."

n:\codenf\as2019\9600241\01368224.docx

P686


TO: DATE: PAGE: RE:

MEMORANDUM PRIVILEGED & CONFIDENTIAL


names of attendees instead of group descriptions, the acceptance/rejection of individual attendees to the invite, etc.) than that which was printed out for us.

In Complainant's May 10, 2019, submission to the Task Force, Complainant further explained that Respondents had withheld "headers and metadata." In response, Respondents argue that the documents produced were from a calendar that complied with Proposition G, which, inter alia, added to the Sunshine Ordinance the requirement that certain officials maintain calendars with certain, specified information. See Admin. Code 67 .29-5. Complainant does not dispute this contention; rather, Complainant contends that Proposition G only sets minimum requirement for calendars and does not provide a basis for withholding whatever other disclosable public records/information may exist.

With respect to Complainant's specifically identified deficiencies, Respondents contend that "email addresses" and "the acceptance/rejection of individual attendees to the invite" have not been withheld, because they do not exist in the calendar. Complainant does not appear to dispute this assertion.

Relatedly, with respect to the request for the "actual names of attendees instead of group descriptions," Respondents contend that, because Proposition G only requires the calendar to reflect individual attendees for meetings or events with fewer than ten attendees, the responsive documents are not required to, and therefore do not, identify individuals' names where more than ten people attended. 3 Respondents similarly contend that the calendar was not required to, and therefore does not, reflect conference call numbers. 4 In short, these categories of information simply do not exist in the responsive documents. Complainant does not appear to dispute that this information does not exist with respect to the calendar maintained in accordance with Proposition G, but Complainant contends that the request was not limit to so-called Proposition G calendars and questions whether some other responsive calendar might exist.

The central outstanding dispute regarding information withheld relates to the metadata associated with the calendar. 5 As an initial matter, Respondents contend they "do[] not routinely maintain specific types of metadata or index them as records," and that Respondents "and City departments generally do not search for and provide metadata in response to records requests." They contend that they lack staff with expertise in using, maintaining or searching metadata. Further, Respondents contend that producing metadata "can subject the City to security risks and

3 Respondents contend that the documents in fact reflect attendees' names where the meeting or event had fewer than ten attendees, in accordance with Proposition G. 4 Respondents also contend that disclosing conference call numbers "could jeopardize official, security-related, confidential, and/or privileged information which may be exchanged over the phone." 5 Respondents contend that certain specific types of metadata, e.g., attachments, exhibits, or inline images, do not exist. The dispute appears limited to headers, metadata, and timestamps, · which I will collectively refer to as "metadata."

n:\codenf\as2019\9600241\01368224.docx

P687


TO; DATE: PAGE: RE:



can lead to the inadvertent disclosure of privileged information," and that the "substantial need for confidentiality outWeighs any interest the requester may have in accessing this information."6

In response, Complainant contends that whether Respondents index metadata or whether they have produced it in the past "has no bearing on whether they are, under the Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA, in fact, public records." Complainant also contends that in conjunction with another request, at least some metadata was produced by the Office of the Mayor under Mayor Lee.· With respect to the various security and confidentiality concerns raised by

. Respondents, Complainant does not appear to dispute that such concerns may exist as to certain metadata in certain circumstances. Complainant contends, however, that these concerns do not provide a basis for the blanket withholding of all metadata, and that the concerns can be · addressed by .redacting protected information.

Complainant's second main issue relates to Respondents' justifications for producing documents in PDF format. Note, however, that because Complainant's request indicated that production in· PDF format would be acceptable provided certain information was included, it may be unnecessary to decide this issue once the Task Force decides whether any impermissible withholding occurred.

With respect to the merits of this issue, Complainant contends that one of the bases asserted by Respondents for production in PDF format, namely, "ease of transferability and accessibility," is not a recognized basis for converting a document under Cal. Gov. Code 6235.9(a). With respect to Respondents' contention that the use of a PDF format was intended to protect "the security and integrity of the original record," Cal. Gov. Code 6253.9(f), Complainant contends that use of the PDF format would at most serve to protect the integrity of the copy, not the original. However, this argument avoids the point that, by withholding the original and providing the documents in an alternative format, Respondents are arguably protecting the .integrity of the original within the meaning of the statute. Complainant further points out that a PDF can be altered or manipulated, and argues that, therefore, production in PDF format does not serve the purpose of protecting the integrity of the record.

The parties seem also to dispute what the native format, in fact, is, further complicating this issue. In Complainant's initial request, Complainant suggested that the calendars might be exported in ".ics, iCalendar, or vCard formats." Respondents contend that they do not "hold" the calendar in an iCalendar, ics or V card format and therefore are not required to produce the · calendar in that format. See Cal. Gov. Code 6253.9(a)(l), supra n.l. Elsewhere, Respondents concede that they could export the calendar in the iCalendar format, but object because "this

6 More detailed concerns that fall generally under these headings are set forth in Respondents' May 21 submission at page 3.

n:\codenf\as2019\9600241\01368224 .docx

P688



TO: .DATE:

Sunshine Ordinance Task Force June 13, 2019

PAGE: 5 RE: Complaint No. 19047: Anonymous v. Mayor London Breed and Hank Heckel, Office

of the Mayor

format would simply create a 'native' file of the whole calendar, as opposed to individual entries." Complainant contends that this would nevertheless be a responsive record.

As indicated by the questions below, it may be useful for the parties to clarify:

• what they believe the native format is, and whether this determination hinges on whether an exported file can be opened in the original software, .

• whether they contend that "exporting" the calendar in, for example, the iCalendar format creates a "non-native" or "non-original" record equivalent to a PDF, and

• whether there is any way to transmit the native data other than exporting it.

QUESTIONS THAT MIGHT ASSIST IN DETERMINING FACTS

• Respondents contend that certain information does not exist because it is not required by Proposition G and therefore not included in the calendars that were disclosed. Complainant contends that his request is not limited Proposition G calendars. Do Respondents maintain any other calendars that would be responsive to Complainant's request?

• What is the legal basis for withholding metadata where it is associated with an otherwise disclosable public record? Do Respondents contend that the practical difficulties or their past practice provides a lawful basis upon which to withhold metadata? Does producing the metadata requested by Complainant require Respondents to create a record that would not otherwise exist?

• Complainant contends that at least some metadata has been produced in the past by the Office of the Mayor and includes a hyper link in Complainant's submission. Can you describe what metadata was provided? Was it simply "to/from/subject" information in emails? Isn't that information that would usually be on the face of the emails (printed or otherwise), whereas here you are asking for something more?

• Complainant appears to accept Respondents' contention that some metadata may reflect sensitive information. Could that information be redacted, while producing other metadata?

" • Complainant's initial request suggested that production in PDF forinat would be

acceptable, provided it included certain information associated with the calendar items. Once we resolve the question of whether any impermissible withholding occurred, do we need to reach the question of whether Respondents were required to produce information in their original electronic format?

n:\codenf\as2019\9600241\01368224.docx

P689

CITY AND COUNTY OF.SAN FRANCISCO OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY

TO:


DATE: Sunshine Ordinance Task Force June 13, 2019

PAGE: 6 RE: Complaint No. 19047: Anonymous v. Mayor London Breed and Hank Heckel, Office

of the Mayor ·

• What is the native format in which Respondents' "hold" the calendar at issue? See Cal. Gov. Code 6253.9(a). ·

• Do Respondents contend that "exporting" the calendar in, for example, the iCalendar format creates a "non-native" record equivalent to a PDF? Is there any other way to transfer the information in a native format other than by exporting it?

• Does the question of whether a document is produced in a native format hinge on whether an exported file can be opened in the original software (e.g., Microsoft Outlook), regardless of the format in which it is exported?

LEGAL ISSUES/LEGAL DETERMINATIONS

• Did Respondents violate the Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA by allegedly failing to satisfy Complainant's request for public records in a complete manner?

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\as2019\9600241 \01368224.docx

P690

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO OFFICE OF THE CITY A HORNEY

TO: DATE: PAGE: RE:


Sunshine Ordinance Task Force June 13, 2019 7 Complaint No. 19047: Anonymous v. Mayor London Breed and Hank Heckel, Office of the Mayor ·

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 of the 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 ofrecords relating to a particular subject or questions with enoµgh 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 ofrecords 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 within 5 days, the supervisor of records shall notify the distric~ 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 aeted on by the supervisor of public records, the person making the request may petition the Sunshine Task Force for a determination whether the 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

n:\codenf\as2019\9600241\01368224 .docx

P691


TO: DATE: PAGE: RE:


Sunshine Ordinance Task Force June 13, 2019 8 Complaint No. 19047: Anonymous v. Mayor London Breed and Hank Heckel, Office oftheMayor

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 determination 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 co:m,ply with any such order within 5 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.

(f) The administrative remedy provided under this article shall in no way limit the availability of other administrative remedies provided to any person with respect to any officer or employee of any agency, executive office, department or board; nor shall the administrative remedy provided by this section in any way limit the availability of judicial remedies otherwise available to any person requesting a public record. If a custodian of a public record refuses or fails to comply with the request of any person for inspection or copy of a public record or with an administrative order under this section, the superior court shall have jurisdiction to order compliance.

(g) In any court proceeding pursuant to this article there shall be a presumption that . the record sought is public, and the burden shall be upon the custodian to prove with specificity the exemption which applies.

(h) On at least an annual basis, and as otherwise requested by the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force, the supervisor of public records shall prepare a tally and report of every petition brought before it for access to records since the time of its last tally and report. The report shall at least identify for each petition the record or records sought, the.custodian of those records, the ruling of the supervisor of public records, whether any ruling was overturned by a court and whether orders given to custodians of public records were followed. The report shall also summarize anTcourt actions during that period regarding petitions the Supervisor has decided. At the request of the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force, the report shall also include copies of all rulings made by the supervisor of public records and all opinions issued. ·

(i) The San Francisco City Attorney's office shall act to protect and secure the rights · of the people of San Francisco to access public information and public meetings and shall not act as legal counsel for any city employee or any person having custody of any public record for purposes of denying access to the public. The City Attorney may publish legal opinions in response to a request from any person as to whether a record or information is public. All communications with the City Attorney's Office with regard to this ordinance, including petitions, requests for opinion, and opinions shall be public records.

n:\codenf\as2019\9600241\01368224.docx

P692


TO: DATE: PAGE: RE:



G) Notwithstanding the provisions of this section, the City Attorney may defend the City or a City Employee in litigation under this ordinance that is actually filed in court to any extent required by the City Charter or California Law.

(k) Release of documentary public information, whether for inspection of the original or by providing a copy, shall be governed by the California Public Records Act (Government Code Section 6250 et seq.) in particulars not addressed by this ordinance and in accordance with the enhanced disclosure requirements provided in this ordinance.

(1) Inspection and copying of documentary public information stored in electronic form shall be made available to the person requesting the information in any form requested which is available to or easily generated by the department, its officers or employees, including disk, tape, printout or monitor at a charge no greater than the cost of the media on which it is duplicated. Inspection of documentary public information on a computer monitor need not be allowed where the information sought is necessarily and unseparably intertwined with information not subject to disclosure under this ordinance. Nothing in this section shall require a department to program or reprogram a computer to respond to a request for information or to release information where the release of that information would violate a licensing agreement or copyright law.

SEC. 67.26. WITHHOLDING KEPT TO A MINIMUM.

No record shall be withheld from disclosure in its entirety unless all information contained in it is exempt from disclosure under express provisions of the California Public Records Act or of some other statute. Information that is exempt from disclosure shall be masked, deleted or otherwise segregated in order that the nonexempt portion of a requested record may be released, and keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the appropriate justification for withholding required by Section 67.27 of this Article. This work shall be done personally by the attorney or other staff member conducting the exemption review. The work of responding to a public-records request and preparing documents for disclosure shall be considered part of the regular work duties of any City employee, and no fee shall be charged to the requester to cover the personnel costs of responding to a records request.

SEC. 67.27. JUSTIFICATION OF WITHHOLDING.

·Any withholding of information shall be justified, in writing, as follows:

(a) A withholding under a specific permissive exemption in the California Public Records Act, or elsewhere, which permissive exemption is not forbidden to be asserted by this ordinance, shall cite that authority.

(b) A withholding on the basis that disclosure is prohibited by law shall cite the specific statutory authority in the Public Records Act or elsewhere.

( c) A withholding on the basis that disclosure would incur civil or criminal liability shall cite any specific statutory or case law, or any other public agency's litigation experience, supporting that position.

n:\codenf\as2019\960024l\01368224.docx

P693


TO:. DATE: PAGE: RE:



( d) When a record being requested contains information, most of which is exempt from disclosure under the California Public Records Act and this Article, the custodian shall inform the requester of the nature and extent of the nonexempt information and suggest

. alternative sources for the information requested, if available.

SEC. 67.29-5. CALENDARS OF CERTAIN OFFICIALS.

(a) The Mayor, City Attorney, Treasurer, Assessor-Recorder, District Attorney, Public Defender, Sheriff, every member of the Board of Supervisors, and every Department Head shall keep or cause to be kept a daily calendar wherein is recorded the time and place of each meeting or event attended by that official, either in person or by teleconference or other electronic means, with the exclusion of purely personal or social events at which no City business is discussed and that do not take place at City Offices or at the offices or residences of people who do substantial business with or are otherwise substantially financially affected by actions of the City. For meetings not otherwise publicly recorded, the calendar shall include a general statement of issues discussed. Such calendars shall be public records and shall be available to any requester three business days subsequent to the calendar entry date.

· (b) For meetings or events with ten or fewer attendees, the calendar shall also identify the individual(s) present and organization(s) represented at the meeting or event if known by the official, unless the official is aware that the information would reveal the identity of a confidential whistleblower, would interfere with an individual's right to petition government where the individual has sought and been assured confidentiality, would disclose the attendance of members or representatives of a labor organization at a meeting to discuss matters within the scope of representation, as that term is defined in California Government Code Section 3504, would reveal personnel information not subject to disclosure, or is otherwise exempt from disclosure under State and local law.

(c) At any meeting or event with ten or fewer attendees, officials subject to subsection (a) of this Section 67.29-5 shall attempt to identify names of attendees present, and the organizations they represent; provided that an official shall not require any attendees to identify themselves, unless the official is aware that those attendees are campaign consultants registered with the Ethics Commission under Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code Article I, Chapter 5; lobbyists registered with the Ethics Commission under Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code Article II, Chapter 1; permit consultants registered with the Ethics Commission under Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code Article III, Chapter 4; Developers of Major Projects, as defined in Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code Section 3.510, ifthe Major Project is discussed at the meeting or event; and employees or representatives of any entity that has received a grant from or entered a contract with any City department within the previous 12 months. The official has no duty to ascertain whether any attendees fall into these categories. Within three business days after a meeting or event subject to .this subsection ( c ), the official shall update the daily calendar to include the names of the attendees and organizations identified by or known to the official. ·

n:\codenf\as2019\9600241\01368224.docx

P694


TO: DATE: PAGE: RE:

MEMORANDUM PRIVILEGED & CONFIDENTIAL.

Sunshine Ordinance Task Force June 13, 2019 11 Complaint No. 19047: Anonymous v. Mayor London Breed and Hank Heckel, Office of the Mayor ·

(d) For the purpose of calculating the total number of attendees at a meeting or event under subsections (b) and ( c ), an official shall not include himself or herself.

(e) . The obligations imposed under subsections (b) and (c), and the obligations imposed upon members of the Board of Supervisors under subsection (a), shall not apply to meetings or events where City business is discussed only incidentally; to unplanned, casual · conversations with residents; to campaign-related meetings, events, artd appearances; or to meetings or events where all attendees are employees or officers in the official's City department, which for members of the Board of Supervisors shall mean that all attendees are members of the Board of Supervisors, legislative aides, or employees of the Office of the Clerk of the Board. Officials are not in violation of subsections (b) or ( c ), and members of the Board of Supervisors are not in violation of subsection (a), if they have made a good faith effort to comply with their obligations thereunder.

GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 6250, et seq. (CPRA)

SEC. 6253

(a) Public records are open to inspection at all times during the office hours of the state or local agency and every person has a right to inspect any public record, except as hereafter provided. Any reasonably segregable portion of a record shall be available for inspection by any person requesting the record after deletion of the portions that are exempted by law.

(b) Except with respect to public records exempt from disclosure by express provisions of law, each state or local agency, upon a request for a copy of records that reasonably describes an identifiable record or records, shall make the records promptly available to any person upon payment of fees covering direct costs of duplication, or a statutory fee if applicable. Upon request, an exact copy shall b.e provided unless impracticable to do so.

(c) Each agency, upon a request for a copy of records, shall, within 10 days from receipt of the request, determine whether the request; in whole or in part, seeks copies of disclosable public records in the possession of the agency and shall promptly notify the person making the request of the determination and the reasons therefor. In unusual circumstances, the time limit prescribed in this section may be extended by written notice by the head of the agency or his or her designee to the person making the request, setting forth the reasons for the extension and the date on which a determination is expected to be dispatched. No notice shall specify a date that would result in an extension for more than 14 days. When the agency dispatches the determination, and if the agency determines that the request seeks disclosable public records, the agency shall state the estimated date and time when the records will be made available. As used in this section, "unusual circumstances" means the following, but only to the extent reasonably necessary to the proper processing of the particular request:

(1) The need to search for and collect the requested records from field facilities or other establishments that are separate from the office processing the request.

(2) The need to search for, collect, and appropriately examine a voluminous amount of separate and distinct records that are demanded in a single request.

n:\codenf\as2019\9600241\01368224.docx

P695


·TO: DATE: PAGE: RE:

MEMORANDUM. PRIVILEGED & CONFIDENTIAL


(3) The need for consultation, which shall be conducted with all practicable speed, with another agency having substantial interest in the determination of the request or among two or more components of the agency having substantial subject matter interest therein.

(4) The need to compile data, to write programming language or a computer program, or to construct a computer report to extract data.

( d) Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to permit an agency to delay or obstruct the inspection or copying of public records. The notification of denial of any request for records · required by Section 6255 shall set forth the names and titles or positions of each person responsible for the denial.

( e) Except as otherwise prohibited by law, a state or local agency may adopt requirements for itself that allow for faster, more efficient, or greater access to records than prescribed by the minimum standards set forth in this chapter. ·

(f) In addition to maintaining public records for public inspection during the office hours of the public agency, a public agency may comply with subdivision (a) by posting any public record on its Internet Web site and, in response to a request for a public record posted on the Internet Web site, directing a member of the public to the location on the Internet Web site where the public record is posted. However, if after'the public agency directs a member of the public to the Internet Web site, the member of the public requesting the public record requests a copy of the public record due to an inability to access or reproduce the public record from the Internet Web site, the public agency shall promptly provide a copy of the public record pursuant to subdivision (b ).

SEC. 6253.9

(a) Unless otherwise prohibited by law, any agency that has information that constitutes an identifiable public record not exempt from disclosure pursuant to this chapter that is in an electronic format shall make that information available in an electronic format when requested by any person and, when applicable, shall comply with the following:

(1) The agency shall make the information available in any electronic format in which it holds the information.

(2) Each agency shall provide a copy of an electronic record in the format requested if the requested format is one that has been used by the agency to create copies for its own use or for provision to other agencies. The cost of duplication shall be limited to the direct cost of producing a copy of a record in an electronic format.

(b) Notwithstanding paragraph (2) of subdivision (a), the requester shall bear the cost of producing a copy of the record, including the cost to construct a record, and the cost of programming and computer services necessary to produce a copy of the record when either of the following applies:

n:\codenf\as2019\9600241 \01368224.docx

P696


TO:. DATE: PAGE: RE:


Sunshine Ordinance Task Force June 13, 2019 · 13 Complaint No. 19047: Anonymous v. Mayor London Breed and Hank Heckel, Office of the Mayor

(1) In order to comply with the provisions of subdivision (a), the public agency would be required to produce a copy of an electronic record and the record is one that is produced only at otherwise regularly scheduled intervals.

(2) The request would require data compilation, extraction, or programming to produce the record.

( c) Nothing in this section shal.l be construed to require the public agency to reconstruct a record in an electronic format if the agency no longer has the record available in an electronic format.

( d) If the request is for information in other than electronic format, and the information also is in electronic format, the agency may inform the requester that the information is available in electronic format. ·

(e) Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit an agency to make information available only in an electronic format.

(f) Nothing in this section shall be construed to require the public agency to release an electronic record in the electronic form in which it is held by the agency if its release would jeopardize or compromise the security or integrity of the original record or of any proprietary ·software in which it is maintained.

(g) Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit public access to records held by any agency to which access is otherwise restricted by statute.

SEC. 6255

(a) The agency shall justify withholding any record by demonstrating that the record in question is exempt under express provisions of this chapter or that on the facts of the particular case the public interest served by not disclosing the record clearly outweighs the public interest served by disclosure of the record.

(b) A response to a written request for inspection or copies of public records that includes a determination that the request is denied, in whole or in part, shall be in writing.

n:\codenf\as2019\9600241\01368224.docx

P697

Sunshine Ordinance Task Force Complaint Summary

File No. 19047

Anonymous v. Mayor London Breed and Hank Heckel, Office of the Mayor

Date filed with SOTF: 05/10/19

Contacts information (Complainant information listed first):. Anonymous (72902-4663 [email protected]) (Complainant) Mayor London Breed, Hank Heckel ([email protected]) (Respondents)

File No. 19047: Complaint filed by Anonymous against Mayor London Breed, Hank Heckel and the Office of the Mayor for allegedly violating Administrative Code, (Sunshine Ordinance) Sections 67.21 and 67.26 and 67.27 and Government Code (CPRA) 6253.9, 6253, and 6255, by failing to respond to a request for public records in a timely and/or complete manner.

Administrative Summary if applicable:

Complaint Attached.

P698

o plainant/Petiti ners

cu · e ts S issi n ~- .

t '· •

/ .

"

P699

#19047 Anonymous

vs

Office of Mayor, et al.

Before the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force San Francisco City Hall

October 2, 2019

Re: Disclosure of All Calendars + Calendar/Event Meta data

1904 7 Anonymous v Office of Mayor, Breed, Heckel

Respondents and SF City agencies are sometimes referred collectively to as the "Government" herein. Interpretation of the Ordinance and CPRA should be consistent across all City agencies.

P700

2

Questions for the Task Force I Proposed Findings

1. Must city agencies disclose calendar records that exist, but were not required to be created by SFAC 67.29-5? Yes.

2. Must city agencies release calendars in ".ics" format or other native calendar formats, when requested? Yes.

3. Must city agencies release PDFs of calendar records in full-text format instead of print/scanned image format? Yes.

4. Must city agencies release calendar/event metadata and headers, when requested, and to what degree? Yes, all of them, except those values explicitly exempt (security, privilege, etc.).

I am not an attorney or IT administrator. Instead, this presentation is my lay opinion based on my research.

19047 Anonymous v Office of Mayor, Breed, Heckel

High level - what the Task Force needs to determine today. 1. All records are presumed public unless explicitly exempt, and calendars are

public records (SFAC 67.21 (g), Gov Code 6252(c)). Nothing exempts calendars not required by 67.29-5 (Prop G). Good Govt Guide (which has no legal weight, but is the Government's own analysis) itself acknowledges this.

2. Gov Code 6253(b), 6253.9 and SFAC 67.21 (I) together require Government to produce records in ANY format that is either: original, available OR "easily generated." .ics calendars are easily generated by a ~2-click export from Outlook. Note: ease of redaction is not addressed; only ease of generating the format. SFAC 67.26 dictates that such redaction is a normal part of Government employee work, and no fee be charged.

3. Text POFs are "easily generated" (we know this because Respondents did it May 9!). Good Govt Guide again discusses this in the context of accessibility. Government's arguments that the scanned PDF was provided for "accessibility" does not make sense -- people needing screen readers would be unable to hear the information.

4. SFAC 67.26 and 67.27 permit agencies ONLY to redact/withhold exempt information. All other info, no matter how small, must be released, and redaction is a normal part of the job for custodians and attorneys. As far as I can tell, in Calendars, NO metadata is actually security-sensitive. Has the Government even looked at an .ics file and studied it with their IT experts?

P701

3

Timeline & Facts of the Case 1.

2.

3.

4. 5.

May 8, 2019 - Immediate Disclosure

Request (IDR) for 1 week of Mayor's calendar records in electronic format w/

metadata for all events

May 9 - Heckel discloses text PDF of. calendar titled "PropG, Mayor (MYR);"

refuses* to provide native format; did not provide metadata or indicate it was withheld;

did not provide non-Prop G calendar or indicate it even exists and was withheld

May 11 - SOTF complaint filed May 15 - 1st Sup. of Records petition filed

Aug. 20 - Complaint Committee finds jurisdiction & records are public, refers to

SOTF

6. Aug. 21 - Carefully worded new IDR for past and future calendars for different dates to test the govt's

legal theories for withholding May 8 IDR records

7. Aug. 26 - Sup. of Records denies 1st petition in full. 8. Aug. 27 - 2nd Sup. of Records petition filed.

9. Sep. 5 ~ Heckel partially discloses non-Prop G

calendars to Aug. 21 IDR, strongly suggesting

unlawful withholding occurred in May 8 IDR. 10. Sep. 6, -6: 1 Spm - Heckel discloses supplemental

non-Prop G calendar to May 8 IDR as scanned PDF, entitled "Calendar, Mayor (MYR)," withholding*

native formats and metadata. Note the footer shows Resp. generated the document on Aug. 27.

9. Sep. 6, -6:19pm - Sup. of Records, citing

supplemental disclosures from 4 minutes prior, replies without a determination on 2nd petition.


The non-Prop G "Calendar, Mayor (MYR)" account, released in part on Sep. 5 and 6, does indeed hold more information than the Prop G calendar, ex: which staff members go to each event. It also includes information about "SID" (unknown meaning, withheld under 6254(f)), and recurrence (how often meetings repeat) information, which is one of various kinds of metadata still withheld.

*Asterisk refusals/withholdings were justified, but I believe the justifications are wrong.

P702

4 DRAFT .. A ttarney/Ctt..,l'~ITT>Ke,)'e<!Q(Y<l\l>'il't«l'errlh\1

Analysis of Non-Prop G Calendar in Print Format

·······\ ..

4

7 --------·-·· -····-----

8

~~~~-----·····~~~··-_--._-----_---~~/ Cale<id•r, Mayrr <MYR) ~ There are at Jeast".2. accounts holding 5127120191 '56 PM

calendar data for the mayor; may be more

Source: Excerpt of public record supplementally disclosed by Heckel, Sept 6, 2019; redacted by respondents

Location information withheld; one-page summary printouts exclude this information

Recurrence metadata withheld, but indication it exists

PDF was generated by printing after request was made; it is not how record was held


The poor quality of the record is due to the likely method used by the Government to copy it - by printing it on paper and scanning it back in to PDF. No excuse to not provide a text PDF, as they did on May 9. Text pdfs are "easily generated."

Redactions seen here are withheld cell phone #s (under Constitutional privacy), and are not currently in dispute.

P703

5

Who created the meeting

and who was invited

Exact location, start

and end times

Detailed body/description

Calendar Event Metadata in Outlook

Organizer Meeting Format Text

t'?- LJ:v 'o ~ B~ Send Cancel Appointment Schedullng New Reply

Email All

From: --;;;-~~~\1~i~~~~Y~'.J!5g~~::~~~;;~;;1 ~~ ·~ Subject: ::0.7.::C::-..c:::::C:c::0:':::1o1;:;::1::::111c::=1:.::=c:::.::::::11c:::1c::1c::::.c=.c:.c::.:c11:c:.::::.11:.::111111 .. 1:::::.111.:::11:::1111·:,:.::;·~~:;;:;

Location: _San Francisco City Hall . ~-- ------- ~-· -·- _ --·------·- . ____ -··· ___ .... Duration: ~~~:8-~~~~Jf! , .. , All day event

Starts: __ 1_°./ .. 2!2.°..1.~[igiJ \4'°.()_'.'f>AJ Ends: 1.o/:>i.2~1.9.[~J [7~~o:;;;;;i

Recurrence: Occurs the first Wednesday of every month effective 10/2/19 from 4:00 PM to 7:30 PM. --::.

CD You are vlewing a single occurrence that is part of a series.

(D This Invitation .has not been sent. .. ......... . . . . . ....... -................... ··~·-. -

Prepare presentations by Sep. 25.

Source: An event created in my local calendar (not a City record)

Free/busy indicators

Category, importance

How often the meeting

repeats

1904 7 Anonymous v Office of Mayor, Breed, Heckel

What a calendar meeting looks like in Outlook.

P704

DRAFT -Attorney/Clilfrl!<i'n<li1e';j'Ml'liWi\'ll<(enlral 6 Calendar Event Meta data ip . ics file [1 of 2]

BEGIN: VCALENDAR PROD ID :-//Microsoft Corporation// Outlook 16. 0 MIMEDIR!/EN VERSION: Z, 0 METHOD: REQUEST X-MS-OLK-FORCEINSPECTOROPEN: TRUE BEGIN.:VTIMEZONE TZID: Pacific Standard Time BEGIN: STANDARD DTSTART: 16011104T020000 RRULE: FREQ=YEARLY; BYDAY=lSU; BYMDNTH=ll TZDFFSETFROM :-0700 TZOFFSETTO: -0B00 END:STANDARD BEGIN: DAYLIGHT DTSTART: 160103111020000 RRULE: FREQ=YEARL Y; BYDAY=ZSU; BYMONTH=31 TZOFFSETFROM :-0800 TZOFFSETTO :-0700 END:DAYLIGHT END:VTIMEZONE BEGIN: VEVENT ATTACH; ENCODING=BASE64; VALUE=BINARY; X-FILENAME=image001. png: iVBDRw0KGgoAAAA ••• ATTACH; ENCODING=BASE64;VALUE=BINARY;X-FILENAME=image002. j pg: /9j /4AAQSkZJRgA ••• ATTACH; ENCODING=BASE64; VALUE=BINARY; X-FILENAME=image003. jpg: /9 j / 4AAQSkZJRgA ••• ATTACH; ENCODING=BASE64; VALUE=BINARY; X-FILENAME=image004. j pg: /9j / 4AAQSkZJRgA, , , ATTACH; ENCODING=BASE64; VALUE=BINARY ;X-FILENAME=image005. png: iVBORW0KGgoAAAA. , , ATTENDEE; CN="Boome r, Roberta"; RSVP= TRUE: mail to: Roberta. Boome [email protected] ATTENDEE; CN="Steinberg, David ( DPW)"; RSVP=TRUE: mai lto: david. steinberg@sfdpw

.org

ATTENDEE; CN="Heckel, Hank (MYR) 11 i RSVP= TRUE: niai lto: hank, heckel@sfgov, org ATTENDEE; CN="Thompson, Marianne ( ECN) 11; RSVP= TRUE: mail to: ma rianne. thompson@s

fgov. org ATTENDEE; CN=11 Selby, Matthew (REG) 11 i ROLE=OPT-PARTICIPANT;RSVP=TRUE: mai lto: ma

tthew. [email protected] ATTENDEE; CN=-11 McHale, Maggie (HRD) 11

; ROLE:::OPT-PARTICIPANT; RSVP::: TRUE: mai lto: ma ggie. [email protected]

I

: PRODID: Product used I

: VTIMEZONE: The timezone and daylight 1 savings information I I I

.1

·I I I

: ATTACH: Attachments, images, etc.

I

: ATTENDEE: Name, email, and status of 1 each meeting invitee. I

I I

Source: Annotated Excerpts of a .ics calendar public record published online by CCSF/DPW at: https://sanfrancisco.nextrequest.com/documents/1670072 19047 Anonymous v Office of Mayor, Breed, Heckel

.ics (iCalendar/vCalendar) is a textual file format that describes a calendar or individual meetings. It is a standard/open format, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICalendar, IETF RFCs 5545, 5546, 6868, 7529, 7986.

It is "easily generated" by ~2-3 click process in Outlook. For example: https://its.uiowa.edu/support/article/3960

Included are many details that are not exempt from disclosure. Nothing I could find in this DPW-disclosed .ics record is security-sensitive as far as 1. know. If the special calendar accounts have secret email addresses to prevent outsiders from spamming invites, they are free to redact that alone. Even if some things are exempt, the rest must be disclosed.

P705

DRAFT. Attorney/Cnlrr!~l'i'i~ifefefe\l(!(Y<l'i{iWf<l'eillM.1 .7 Calendar Event Metadata ip .ics file [2 of 2]

I I

CLASS: PUBLIC I CREATED: 20190822T221415Z I DESCRIPTION:Hi Everyone\, \n\n \n\n! look fontard to seeing you at our next I

CLASS: Public/private visibility CREATED: \Nhen the meeting was created DESCRIPTION: Body/desc. of the event Custodians of Records meeting. Please send me your agenda items. \n\n \n\ 1

nCaroline Celaya\n\nManager\, Public Records Requests \n\n \n\n\n\n \n\n01 1 fice 415-701-4648\n\nSan Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency\n\nl 5< uth Van Ness Avenue\, 7th floor\n\nSan Francisco\, CA 94103\n\n <https://i, 1 DTSTART/END p ' t rt/ d f ww.instagram.com/sfmtaphoto/> <https://WWW,facebook.com/SFMTA.Muni/> <hi I ; reCJSe Sa en 0 event ~ps:11twitter.com/sfmta_muni> <https:/fwww.sfmta.com/> \n\n \n\n \n\n \n' : LAST-MODIFIED: \Nhen the meeting was

OTEND;TZIQ;"Pacific Standard Time":20190912T163000 I edited . DTSTAMP: 20190812Tl93819Z I

~~~~~~bbi~i~~·;~~~~~~~2~~~~~~~~ nme" :2019091zm3000 1 LOCATION: Full location LDCATION:SFMTA\, 7th Floor\, Union Square Conference Room 1. ORGANIZER: Name/email of meeting ~:~~i~~~~ CN:::"Celaya' Caroline 11

: mailto: Caroline I [email protected] creator . sEQUENcE:e SUMMARY: Title SUMMARY:Custodian of .Records Quarterly meeting TRANSP: OPAQUE UID: 04000000, , • X-ALT-DESCi FMTTYPE=text/html:<html xmlns: v="urn: schemas-microsoft-com: vml" , , , X-MICROSOFT-CDO-BUSYSTATUS: BUSY X-MICROSOFT-CDO-IMPORTANCE: 1 . X-MICROSDFT-CDO-INTENOEOSTATUS: BUSY X-MICROSOFT-OISALLOW-COUNTER: FALSE BEGIN: VALARM TRIGGER:-PT15M ACTION: DISPLAY DESCRIPTION: Reminder END:VALARM END:VEVENT END: VCALENDAR

I I

UID: Unique id of meeting X-ALT-DESC: Formatted body/desc. PRIORITY/IMPORTANCE: Importance VALARM: Reminder settings

If this meeting repeated, would also see that as an RRULE datum.

Source: Annotated Excerpts of a .ics calendar public record published online by CCSF/DPW at: https://sanfrancisco.nextrequest.com/documents/1670072 19047 Anonymous v Office of Mayor, Breed, Heckel

.ics (iCalendar/vCalendar) is a textual file format that describes a calendar or individual meetings. It is a standard/open format, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICalendar, IETF RFCs 5545, 5546, 6868, 7529, 7986.

It is "easily generated" by ~2-3 click process in Outlook. For example: https://its.uiowa.edu/support/article/3960

Included are many details that are not exempt from disclosure. Nothing I could find .in this DPVV disclosed .ics record is security-sensitive as far as I know. Even if some things are exempt, the rest must be disclosed.

P706

8

Request for Relief - Find Respondents Violated:

1. SFAC 67.21 (I) - Resp. failed to provide emails in requested ".ics" format

(or text PDFs instead of images), which are "easily generated", on May 9

and Sept 6.

2. SFAC 67.21, 67.26 - Resp. withheld more than the legally exempt

portions of the records, on May 9, of metadata and non-Prop-G

calendars, and on Sept 6, of metadata

3. SFAC 67.27 - Resp. failed to justify withholding, on May 9, of metadata

and non-Prop-G calendars

4. SFAC 67.21 (k) - Violations of CPRA, incorporated by reference: Gov Code 6253.9, 6253, and 6255


P707

9

Request for Relief - Determine the following are public and order their immediate publication: 1. All non-67.29-5 or "unofficial" calendars not yet disclosed, in any form/media,

possessed by the Mayor herself or her staff

2. All requested calendar records in the ".ics" format (instead of .pdf format), with ·

justified redactions if any. If PDFs are disclosed for any record, they must be

full-text & searchable, not printed + scanned images

3. All data/metadata for each meeting item in the time period requested (incl. but

not limited to creator, timestamps, full item body, recurrence information, location,

and invitees)


P708

Leger, Cheryl (BOS)

From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments:

. [email protected] Monday, June 3, 2019 9:22 PM Hecket Hank (MYR) SOTF, (BOS); Breed, Mayor London (MYR) RE: California Public Records Act Request #19047 SF-Mayor-Calendar-Appeal-SOTF-19047-followup.pdf


June 4, 2019

This is a follow up to request number 19047:

RE: SOTF - File No. 19047

Mr. Heckel, Mayor Breed, and Honorable Members of the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force,

I have attached a rebuttal to Mr. Hecke l's response. I hope your Task Force will consider my complaint soon.

**Note that all of your responses (including disclosed records) may be automatically and instantly available to the public on the MuckRock.com service used to issue this request (though I am not a MuckRock representative). **

Sincerely, Anonymous

Filed via MuckRock.com E-mail (Preferred): [email protected] Upload documents directly:

https://accounts.muckrock.com/accounts/login/?url_auth_token=AAAxJllHIMv5WCJDSHoGRqLEvZl%3A1hYOx0%3Acyb BfyEkLjcMqUc5AOTsUISWQo8&next=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.muckrock.com%2Faccounts%2Flogin%2F%3Fnext%3D%25 2Faccounts%252Fagency_login%252Foffice-of-the-mayor-3891%252Fapril-28-may-4-2019-calendar-immediatedisclosure-request-72902%252F%253Femail%253Dhank.heckel%252540sfgov.org Is this email coming to the wrong contact? Something else wrong? Use the a.bove link to let us know.

For mailed responses, please address (see note): MuckRock News DEPT MR 72902 411A Highland Ave Somerville, MA 02144-2516

PLEASE NOTE: This request is not filed by a MuckRock staff member, but is being sent through MuckRock by the above in order to better track, share, and manage public records requests. Also note that improperly addressed (i.e., with the requester's name rather than "MuckRock News" and the department number) requests might be returned as undeliverable.

P709·

On May 21, 2019: Dear Honorable Members of the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force,

Please see the attached response to the complaint notic~d below, and the attached associated files. Best Regards,

Hank Heckel Compliance Officer Office of Mayor London N. Breed City and County of San Francisco

On May 21, 2019: To Whom It May Concern:

I write to inform you that we are working on responding to your petition. I hope to have a response to you no later than the end of next week. Thank you for your patience.

[cid:[email protected]]Bradley Russi Deputy City Attorney

·Office of City Attorney Dennis Herrera City Hall, Room 234 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Pl., San Francisco, CA 94102 www.sfcityattorney.org

On May 15, 2019: Attached is a new petition to the Supervisor of Records.

**Note that all of your responses (including disclosed records) may be automatically and instantly available to the public on the MuckRock.com service used to issue this request (though I am not a MuckRock representative).**

On May 14, 2019: Good Morning:

Mayor London Breed, Hank Heckel and the Office of the Mayor have been named as Respondents 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.

Pt10

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

<http:/ /www.sfbos.org/index.aspx?page=104> Click here<http://www.sfbos.org/index.aspx?page=104> to complete a Board of Supervisors Customer Service Satisfaction form.

The Legislative Research Center<http://www.sfbos.org/index.aspx?page=9681> provides 24-hour access to Board of Supervisors legislation, and archived matters since August 1998.

Disclosures: Personal information that is provid.ed 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 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.

On May 11, 2019: The following Sunshine Task Force complaint against Office of Mayor was filed earlier today: https://cdn.muckrock.com/outbound_request_attachments/Anonymous_2859385/72902/SF-Mayor-Calendar-SOTFAppeal-72902.pdf

**Note that all of your responses (including disclosed records) may be automatically and instantly available to the public on the MuckRock.com service used to issue this request {though I am not a MuckRock representative). **

Thank you, Anonymous

On May 8, 2019: This is an Immediate Disclosure Request under the San Francisco Sunshine Ordinance, made before close of business

May 8, 2019.


PT11

We request under the San Francisco Sunshine Ordinance (Ordinance) and the California Public Records Act (CPRA):

"1. ati electronic copy, in the original electronic format, with all calendar item headers, email addresses, metadata, timestamps, attachments, appendices, exhibits, and in line images, except those explicitly exempted by the Ordinance, of the Mayor's calendar, with all items, from April 28 to May 4, 2019 (inclusive)."

We remind you of your obligations to provide electronic records in the original format you hold them in. Therefore, calendars exported in the .ics, iCalendar, or vCard formats with all non-exempt headers, meta data, attachments, etc. are best. Such formats are easily exportable from Google Calendar, Microsoft Outlook, Microsoft Exchange or other common calendaring/email systems.

However, if you choose to convert calendar items, for example, to PDF or printed format, to easily redact them, you must ensure that you have preserved the full content of the original calendar item record (as specified in request "1"), which contains many detailed headers beyond the ones generally printed out. If you instead provide PDFs or printed items with only a few of the headers or lacking attachments/images, and therefore withhold the other headers/attachments without justification, you may be in violation of SF Admin Code 67.26, 67.27, Govt Code 6253(a), 6253.9, and/or 6255, and we may challenge your decision.

Please provide only those copies of records available without any fees. If you determine certain records would require fees, please instead provide the required notice of which of those records are available and non-exempt for inspection in-person if we so choose.

I look forward to your immediate disclosure.


Filed via MuckRock.com E-mail (Preferred): [email protected] Upload documents directly: https://accounts.muckrock.com/accounts/login/?url_auth_token=AAAxJllHIMv5WCJDSHoGRqLEvZl%3A1hYOx0%3Acyb BfyEkljcMqUc5AOTsUl5WQo8&next=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.muckrock.com%2Faccounts%2Flogin%2F%3Fnext%3D%25 2 Facco u n.ts%252 Fagen cy _logi n%252 Foffice-of-the-m ayo r-3 891%252 Fa pri 1-28-m ciy-4-2019-ca le nda r-i m mediate-d iscl osu re-request-72902 %252 F%253 Fem ail %253 D hank. hecke 1%252540sfgov .o rg Is this email coming to the wrong contact? Something else wrong? Use the above link to let us know.


PLEASE NOTE: This request is nbt filed by a MuckRock staff member, but is being sent through MuckRock by the above in order to better track, share, and manage public records requests. Also note that improperly addressed (i.e., with the requester's name rather than "MuckRock News" and the department number) requests might be returned as undeliverable.

Pf12

[email protected] (Anonymous requestor) US mail to: MuckRock News, DEPT MR 72902, 411A Highland Ave, Somerville, MA 02144-2516

Please use email only. I am an anonymous user of MuckRock.com, not a MuckRock representative.

SUNSHINE ORDINANCE TASK FORCE Room 244 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place San Francisco CA 94102 [email protected] sent via email

Your ref.

#19047

RE: SF Sunshine Ordinance Complaint against Office of Mayor, ref 19047

To the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force:

Date

2019-06-03

NOTE: Every response you send or provide (including all responsive records) may be automatically and immediately visible to the general public on the MuckRock.corn web service used to issue this request. (I am not a representative of MuckRock)

On May 11, 2019, I filed a Sunshine Ordinance complaint with your Task Force against the Office of the Mayor, Mayor London Breed, Hank Heckel, and sent a copy to the Mayor's office by email as a courtesy.

On May 14, 2019, Cheryl Leger, Assistant Clerk, Board of Supervisors captioned my complaint 19047, Anonymous v. Mayor London Breed and Hank Heckel, Office of the Mayor and requested from the Office of the Mayor a response within 5 business days.

On May 21, 2019, Mr. Heckel on behalf of the Mayor filed their response. A rebuttal to the Mayor's response follows below.

L Prop. G does not limit ·the portions of calendars that are disclosable public records

a) Respondents argue that all (1999) Prop. G (SF Admin Code Sec. 67.29-5) information ·was disclosed (Response pg. 2) and in the "Prop G format" (Response pg. 1). However, SF Admin Code Sec. 67.29-5 merely sets the minimum requirements for what calendar

P713

RE: SF Sunshine Ordinance Complaint against Office of Mayor, ref 190.!,7

information must be kept by the Mayor (and other specified officials). It in no way excludes other information from being disclosed, and does not alter the definition of "public records" under the Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA in anyway. If the Mayor's office in fact prepares, owns, uses, or retains any additional calendar.or scheduling information (in paper or electronic format) re: the Mayor's calendar beyond the requirements of SF Admin Code Sec. 67.29-5, "relating to the conduct of the public's business," those records or portion thereof would also be public records, and rµust be disclosed unless specifically exempt under the CPRA/Sunshine Ordinance.

b) Respondents argue "The Prop G calendar maintained by the Office of the Mayor does not use the invite feature of the Outlook calendar to invite and record attendees" (Response pg. 2, emphasis mine). The disclosed record itself is labeled "PropG, Mayor (MYR)." It is unclear whether there is some other (non-Prop G) calendar maintained by the Mayor's office. Our request was for, inter alia, "an electronic copy, in the original electronic format, with all calendar item headers, email addresses, metadata; timestamps, attachments, appendices, exhibits, and inline images, except those explicitly exempted by the Ordinance, of the Mayor's calendar, ... " Therefore either the Mayor's office should declare that it has no other records responsive to our request (i.e. the Mayor keeps no more detailed calendar information other than Prop. G information, which is difficult to believe) or state th~t all other such records are exempt from disclosure, with specific justification. The fact that information is not part of Prop. G/SF Admin Code Sec. 67.29-5 is not a justification for exemption. Furthermore, Prop. G (SF Admin Code Sec. 67.29-5) does not specify any format for calendar information. Neither SF Admin Code Sec. 67.29-5 nor any other provision of the Sunshine Ordinance can be interpreted in a way that would reduce my rights under the state-wide CPRA or conflict with it. To the exterit that Respondents argue that only Sec. 67.29-5 calendar information is public, such argument would violate the CPRA.

c) Respondents argue no "substantiative information" has been withheld (Response pg. 1, 2). The CPRA and Sunshine Ordinance do not permit public agencies to determine for themselves what information is "substantiative." These laws concern themselves with the records only, and let the public decide for itself what records a.re impprtant. However, I also argue why the information I seek is important below.

2. Metadata is not categorically exempt from disclosure

a) As background, while not binding upon your Task Force, consider this note from League of California Cities' "The People's Business"1 : .

Agencies that receive requests for metadata or requests for records that include metadata should treat the requests the same way· they treat all other requests for electronic information and disclose nonexempt metadata.

It also points out that "evolving law in other jurisdictions has held that local agency

1 Retrieved June 3, 2019. April 2017. League of California Cities. "The People's Business." Page 14. http://www.cacities.org/Resources/Open-Govermnent/THE-PEDPLE%E2%B0%99S-BUSINESS-A-Guide-to-the-California-Pu. aspx

2 of 6

P714

2 1bid.


metadata is a public record subject to disclosure unless an exemption applies" 2 (see Lake v. City of Phoenix, (2009) 218 P.3d 1004, 1008; O'Neill v. City ofShoreline (2010) 240 P.3d 1149, 1154; Irwin v. Onondaga County (2010) 895 N.Y.S.2d 262, 268.).

b) Respondents argue that they do not index metadata as records, do not generally search metadata, and (this Administration) have not provided them in the past (Response pg. 3). The Mayor's failure to index and in the past search for or provide metadata has no bearing on whether they are, under the Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA, in fact, public records. Furthermore, the Office of the Mayor (under Mayor Lee) did provide, for example, certain metadata (i.e. From, To, Sent, and Subject headers) in response to e-mail records request3 . Calendars and emails are not identical, and I do not concede that those few headers constitute sufficient disclosure (and in fact argue as much under a separate parallel SOTF complaint 19044, Anonymous v. Dennis Herrera, Elizabeth Coolbrith), but it is the case that some metadata has in fact been disclosed by the Office of the Mayor in the past.

c) Respondents argue that metadata could create security risks or disclose privileged information (Response pg. 3). Respondents cite certain articles regarding hacking of the City of Atlanta systems (Response Attachment pp. 12-19), however the article itself does not seem to argue that such breaches were caused by disclosure of metadata. It is however the case that certain headers and similar could in fact create security risks, but this is not a blanket reason to withhold all headers or metadata.

d) There are ways for the Mayor (and other City agencies) to both meet their requirements under the Sunshine Ordinance, CPRA, and California Constitution while protecting the City's security. One proposal I made in 19044, Anonymous v. Dennis Herrera, Elizabeth Coolbrith was4 :

the City Attorney publishes an opinion that in its independent legal judgment, and in good faith consultation with information technology security experts, that all e-mail header names are non-exempt and at least the following e-mail header values (in addition to body, attachments and inline images) [Date, Sender, Message-Id, To, From, Subject, Mime-Version, Content-Type, Return-Path, Cc, Bee, X-Envelope-From, Thread-Topic, Thread-Index, Sender, References, InReply-To, X-Originatororg, Delivered-To, X-Forwarded-To, X-Forwarded-For] are in fact not automatically exempt from disclosure (unless the specifc [sic] content is exempt); ·

A similar process can be used for calendar items and electronic records in general: that the City consult with IT security experts and provide uniform policies on which headers/metadata are genuinely exempt due to security concerns and directing that others can be safely released.

3 See for example https: I /wmr. muckrock. com/f oi/ san-francisco-141/ ed-lee- emails-52899/ 4 My May 17, 2019 follow-up to SOTF 19044, pg. 3, https://cdn.muckrock.com/outbound_request_attachments/

Anonymous_2859385/72056/SF-Email-Appeal-72056-SDTF-19044-corrected-a.pdf

3 of 6

P715

RE: SF Sunshine Ordinance Complai'(!t against Office of Mayor, ref 19047

e) Respondents argue it is "necessary to withhold metadata that describes unique identifiers for individual computer terminals and computer servers and associated security certificates and similar information." (Response pg. 3) To the extent that means IP addresses and certificate private keys are exempt under the Sunshine Ordinance, I do not disagree. I am not sure how certificate private keys could be stored in calendar items.

f) To the extent that metadata could include attorney-client privilege, work product privilege, identity of a confidential whistle blower or protected health information (Response pg. 3), that concern exists for the non-metadata "body" of any record as well. It is routinely redacted and handled correctly by City agencies, and it should be no different for metadata. In SOTF 19044, Anonymous v. Dennis Herrera, Elizabeth Coolbrith for example, the City Attorney disclosed a redacted version of an email I requested by printing the entire record with all headers and then redacting the ones they felt were exempt from disclosure5 . I argued6 in 19044 that this disclosure remains insufficient due to the specifics of the headers not disclosed, but it shows that a process is possible.

3. Respondents should disclose calendars in their native formats

a) Respondents argue the iCalendar format would be a native file of the whole calendar (Response pg. 4). I agree, and that would be a record responsive to my request. Metadata would in fact have need to be redacted appropriately (see 2f above). Respondents argue the .ics format is not typically used or maintained by them (Response pg. 4). However, tlie '.ics' format is another name for the iCalendar format. 7· I used both names in my request since they may not be familiar terms.

b) Respondents argue that they do not hold "the Prnp G calendar in an iCalendar, .ics or Vcard format" (emphasis mine, Response pg. 3). First, as argued in my Part 1, I have never requested only the Prnp G calendar - all calendar information for the M11yor, in any format, for the days requested are responsive public records. Second, while Respondents may neither "hold" nor make copies for .themselves or other agencies in i Calendar or vCard formats, it is difficult to believe that the only format Respondents hold calendar records is in PDF - this would be impractical to edit and use on a day-to-da:y basis. My request was for "an electronic copy, in the original electronic format" of the calendar. From the appearance of the disclosed partial calendar record, it appears the Respondents use Microsoft Outlook and/or Exchange for their Calendars. Microsoft Outlook/Exchange certainly do not "hold" calendar data in PDF formats. I did suggest .ics, iCalendar, or vCard as potential formats, as they are well-known or standardized formats. If anything, the concern about security risks should be lower using, for example, iCalendar, since it is publicly defined as a standard in IETF RFC 5545 (https: I /tools. ietf. org/html/ rfc5545 - as subsequently amended by RFCs 5546, 6868, 7529, 7953, 7986). Using the native formats does not preclude Respondents from redacting that specific information which is exempt under the Sunshine Ordinance.

5 Seehttps://cdn.muckrock.com/foia_files/2019/05/17/4-18-19_Email_Received_Redacted.pdf 6 My May 17, 2019 follow-up to SOTF 19044, pp. 2-3, https: I I cdn. muckrock. com/ outbound_request_attachments/

Anonymous_2859385/72056/SF-Email-Appeal-72056-SDTF-19044-corrected-a.pdf 7https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICalendar

4 of 6

P716


4. Respondents failed to justify their withholding adequately. On May 9, 2019, Respondents cited Cal. Gov. Code 6253.9(a}(l) and Cal. Gov. Code 6253.9(f) as reasons to provide PDF formats as opposed to the original electronic format. They addressed solely the format issue. They provided us no determination whether the metadata/headers I requested existed and did not state they were withholding it (SF Admin Code 67.21(b), Govt Code 6253(c)), and they did not justify doing so (SF Admin Code 67.27). Furthermore, SF Admin Code 67.26 states in relevant part:

Information that is exempt from disclosure shall be masked, deleted or otherwise segregated in order that the nonexempt portion of a requested record may be released, and keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the appropriate justification for withholding required by Section 67.27 of this Article.

If Respondents wished to withhold metadata/headers they should have printed it out in PDF format (since they prefer PDF), redacted the specific portions, and justified each redaction. If any non-"Prop G" calendar records do in fact exist (something I do not believe has been determined), Respondents did not address their existence or withholding in their response, either.

5. Metadata and native formats include information that is both non-exempt and important. San Francisco does not permit its agencies to use the public interest balance exemption (SF Admin Code 67.24(g,i)), however, I thought it would be useful to explain why non-exempt metadata and native formats may be useful to the public. Native formats allow the public to easily search, index, import, and analyze information about the public business; PDFs create an additional barrier to making this information universally accessible as they are not optimized for calendar storage. Metadata that does not put the City at risk for security breaches and is not otherwise exempt include information such as which event attend~es accepted/rejected an invite, when an invite was created, when it was sent or received, who actually sent it (the Mayor, vs. her subordinates), which party initiated the calendar invite and more. Metadata can help answer common investigative and journalistic questions including "who knew what, and when did they know it?"

I respectfully ask that your Task Force find the Respondents did violate the. Sunshine Ordinance through their May 9, 2019 response to my records request, that Respondents continue to do so, and direct the Respondents to:

1. Disclose all oth~r calendar records (in whatever form, whether Prop G or not Prop G) in the date range requested.

2. Disclose all metadata/header names and all values except those values specifically exempt (regardless of the format used). ·

3. Produce the calendar records (including both the Prop G records previously disclosed in PDF form, and any new calendar items they disclose) in their native electronic format (or another format like iCalendar if it preserves those metadata).

5 of 6

P717


Item 1 should be performed even if your Task Force finds all metadata categorically exempt and does not find that the Respondents are required to produce records in their original electronic format. Per our original request: "Please provide only those copies of records available without any fees. If you determine certain records would require fees, please instead provide the required notice of which of those records are available and non-exempt for inspection in-person if we so choose."

I hope that the complaint is now ripe for consideration by your Task Force or a committee thereof. As it would be difficult for me to be physically present at any in-person hearings, and in order to maintain my anonymity, I would appreciate the opportunity to be heard via conference call (telephone, Google Hangouts, Skype, etc.) if needed. Since this e~mail mailbox is completely public, I can send an email from a private address to retrieve conference call connection information if it is available.

Sincerely,

[email protected] (Anonymous requestor)

6 of 6

P718

[email protected] (Anonymous requestor) US mail to: MuckRock News, DEPT MR 72902, 411A Highland Ave, Somerville, MA 02144-2516

Please use email. only. I am an anonymous user of MuckRock.com, not a MuckRock representative.

SUNSHINE ORDINANCE TASK FORCE Room 244 - Tel. ( 415) 554-7724; Fax ( 415) 554-7854 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place San Francisco CA 94102 cc: Office of the Mayor ([email protected]) sent via email and web-form to Task Force, email to Office of Mayor

Our ref.

#72902


To Whom It May Concern:

Date

2019-05-10

NOTE: Every response you send or provide (including all responsive records) may be automatically and immediately visible to the general public on the MuckRock.com web service used to issue this request. (I am not a representative of MuckRock)

A. METADATA:

Complainant Name: (Anonymous - use email [email protected])

Date of Request: May 8, 2019

Complaint Against Employees: London N. Breed (Breed) in her official capacity as Mayor, Hank Heckel (Heckel) in his official capacity as Compliance O:~icer for Office of Mayor

Complaint Against Agency: Office of Mayor

Yes - Alleged violation of public records access Yes - Alleged failure to provide information in a timely manner in accordance with the provisions of the Sunshine Ordinance No - Alleged violation of a public meeting

P719 #SFSOTF-72902-000001


B. NARRATIVE:

On May 8, 2019 we sent a San Francisco Sunshine Ordinance (Ordinance) and California Public Records Act (CPRA) request to the Office of Mayor (enclosed herein as Exhibit A, which also includes the communication back and forth with the Mayor's office and Heckel) for, inter alia:

11 1. an electronic copy, in the original electronic format, with all calendar item headers1

email addresses, metadata, timestamps, attachments, appendices, exhibits, and inline images, except those explicitly exempted by the Ordinance, of the Mayor's calendar; with all items, from April 28 to May 4, 2019 (inclusive)."

We remind you of your obligations to provide electronic records in the original format you hold them in. Therefore, calendars exported in the .ics, iCalendar, or vCard formats with all non-exempt headers, metadata, attachments, etc. ·are best .. Such formats are easily exportable from Google Calendar, Microsoft Outlook, Microsoft Exchange or other common calendaring/email systems.

However, if you choose to convert calendar items, for example, to PDF or printed format, to easily redact them, you must ensure that you have preserved the full content of the original calendar item record (as specified in request 11 1 11

), which contains many detailed headers beyond the ones generally printed out. If you instead provide PDFs or printed items with only a few of the headers or lacking attachments/images, and therefore withhold the other headers/attachments without justification, you may be in violation of SF Admin Code 67.26, 67.27, Govt Code 6253(a), 6253.9, and/or 6255, and we may challenge your decision.

On May 8, 2019 Heckel acknowledged the request and on May 9, 2019 Heckel replied on behalf of Breed with records responsive to the request in relevant part:

Re: Public Records Request received May 8, 2019

To whom it may concern:

This responds to your Immediate Disclosure Request below.

Response Dated April 24, 2019 [sic}

Thank you for your inquiry. Please see attached the requested information.

This information has been provided in a PDF format for its ease of transferability and accessibility, consistent with Cal. Gov. Code 6253.9(a)(l). Moreover, pursuant to Cal. Gov. Code 6253.9 (f), an agency is not required to provide an electronic record in an electronic format that would jeopardize or compromise the security or integrity of the original record. The PDF format ensures the security and integrity of the original record.

2 of 7

P720 #SFSOTF-72902-000002


and attached a PDF form (Exhibit B - the PDF file itself can also be downloaded at https: I I cd.n. muckrock.com/foia_files/2019/05/09/MuckRock_Calendar~Request_4-27_-_5-4.pdf) of the requested calendar including only: times, physical locations, and titles of events and names or descriptions of some attendees, to which I replied on the same day in relevant part:

We do not believe your arguments re: the acceptability of PDF format are valid and intend to contest them at the Sunshine Task Force. First, 6253.9(f) protects the integrity and security of the *original* record, not the copy of the record you provide to the public. Regardless, PDFs which are not digitally signed can be quite easily edited by anyone, no differently than editing say the .ics calendar file you could have provided to us. Second, 6253.9(a)(l) plainly requires provision of the /sic} in ''any electronic format in which it holds the information" and we asked for the original format. Our understanding of computer systems indicates that format is not PDF.

In the mean time, I will point out that the original electronic format of the Mayor's calendar may contain substantial additional information (such as email addresses, conference call numbers, actual names of attendees instead of group descriptions, the acceptance/rejection of individual attendees to the invite, etc.) than that which was printed out for us. In addition to, and separately from, not being in the original format, by converting to PDF, you may have withheld such portions of the record from us, without pointing out to us that the portions were in fact withheld nor providing statutory justification for exemption (required by CPRA and the Sunshine Ordinance) nor providing the name and title of the official responsible for such withholding. Please provide all

. such information, if any information was withheld in the PDF you released to us, as compared to the original format.

Since I had previously requested the entire calendar items in their original electronic format, I proceeded to file this complaint.

C. COMPLAINTS:

I make the following allegations. I am not an attorney, so my understanding is associated with proper sections of the law to the best of my (lay) ability.

1. Violations of SF Admin Code Sec. 67.27. Justification Of Withholding

On May 9, 2019, Heckel's response did not justify withholding portions of the responsive calendar records (namely the headers and metadata, which we had specifically requested in our original request). No statutory nor case law authority was provided. Note Heckel provided an argument (which we believe to be wrong, see below) for why he had not provided the original format. He did not provide any justification for withholding the header and metadata information, even in PDF format. Our original request did indicate that if the Mayor were to convert the calendar to PDF format, we still wanted the entire record with all headers, metadata, etc.

We specifically asked for calendars in the original· electronic format. Calendars are not stored in PDF format by calendaring systems. From the City's SB 272 enterprise systems list, it appears the

3 of 7

P721 #SFSOTF-72902-000003


City1 uses Microsoft Exchange/Outlook as its email and calendaring system. Such a system should be able to export a full copy of calendar items in iCalendar/.ics format, which preserves most if not all of the item's content. This could be done by simply printing out the .ics/iCalendar exported file and redacting as needed.

2. Violations of SF Admin Code Sec. 67.26. Withholding Kept To A Minimum

On lVIay 9, 2019, responsive records as provided in an attachment to Heckel's response (Exhibit B) did not withhold the minimum necessary portions of the calendars requested. While it may be

· argued that some of the headers of a calendar item could be withheld for privacy 'reasons (though we do not concede such point), that does not mean the Mayor can withhold all portions of the calendar items other than Time, Title, Physical Location, and (sometimes) Attendee Names/Descriptions.

3. Violations of SF Admin Code Sec. 67.21. Process For Gaining Access To Public Records; Administrative Appeals.

67.21(b) (" ... 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 .... ") was violated by Heckel's May 9, 2019 response wherein he did not indicate that the Mayor was withholding the remaining portions of the full calendar item records, with headers and metadata.

67.21(1) ("Inspection and copying of documentary public information stored in electronic form shall be made available to the person requesting the information in any form requested which is available to or easily generated by the department ... ") was violated on May 9, 2019 since Heckel provided the calendars requested in PDF format and not the raw /original format stored by the email servers. This original format (which we specifically requested) contains those additional headers we requested. As described in Complaint 1, paragraph 2, we believe exporting of calendar items in iCalendar/.ics format should be easy given the City's systems.

4. Violations of CA Govt Code 6253;9

6253.9(a)(l) (" ... The agency shall make the information available in any electronic format in which it holds the information .... ") was violated for reasons stated under the second paragraph of complaint =lf.3. .

5. Violations of CA Govt Code 6253

6253(a) ("Any reasonably segregable portion of a record shall be available for illspection by any person requesting the record after deletion of the portions that are exempted by law.") was violated for reasons stated under complaint =lf.2. Portions of the responsive email records (headers, metadata) that are not exempt under the law were deleted by using the PDF print-out formats that the Mayor chose.

1 For some reason, it appears only SF Public Health has listed its email system, not the Mayor, so this is an extrapolation.

4 of 7

P722 #SFSOTF-72902-000004


6. Violations of CA Govt Code 6255

6255(a) was violated for reasons stated under complaint #1.

D. REBUTTALS:

1. CA Govt Code 6253.9(a) (1) does not permit use of formats for "transferability and accessibility"

In Heckel's May 9 response, the Office of the Mayor argued "This information has been provided in a PDF format for its ease of transferability and accessibility, consistent with Cal. Gov. Code 6253.9(a)(l)."

By its plain language, that is not what 6253.9(a)(l) requires. CA Govt Code 6253.9(a) reads:

(a) Unless otherwise prohibited by law, any agency that has information that constitutes an identifiable public record not exempt from disclosure pursuant to this chapter that is in an electronic format shall make that information available in an electronic format when requested by any person and, when applicable, shall comply with the following:

- (1) The agency shall make the information available in any electronic format in which it holds the information.

- (2) Each agency shall provide a copy of an electronic record in the format requested if the requested format is one that has been used by the agency to create copies for its own use or for provision to other agencies. The cost of duplication shall be limited to the direct cost of producing a copy of a record in an electronic format.

Since there is no ambiguity in the statute's language, 6253.9(a)(l) should be given its plain meaning. Nothing in this clause refers to conversion of files for transferability and accessibility.

2. CA Govt Code 6253.9(f) protects the security and integrity of originals, not copies

In Heckel's May 9 response, the Office of the Mayor argued "pursuant to Cal. Gov. Code 6253.9 (f), an agency is not required to provide an electronic record in an electronic format that would jeopardize or compromise the security or integrity of the original record. The PDF format ensures the security and integrity of the original record.''

This argument fails for two reasons.

Most importantly, 6253.9(f) states (emphasis mine) "Nothing in this section shall be construed to require the public agency to release an electronic record in the electronic form in which it is held by the agency if its release would jeopardize or compromise the security or integrity of the original record or of any proprietary software in which it is maintained." The Mayor appears to believe that the PDF format makes it harder for someone to modify the file. However that would be (if it was true) a protection of the integrity of the copy. That is not what the statute requires.

5 of 7

P723 #SFSOTF-72902-000005


Otherwise, physical copies could not be provided under the CPRA, as they can be easily altered in writing/printed, and recopied, and passed off as the originals.

Secondarily, the PDF format, in the form that the :rviayor has used it to provide the resp.onsive record on May 9, does not even protect the security and integrity of the copy. Anyone can modify a PDF file with, among many other products, Apple's Preview app (a free default app that comes with Mac OS X computers),' Adobe's Acrobat or Photoshop. Persons could also of course modify the iCalendar/.ics exported file copies just as easily. If the Mayor wants to use the PDF format to protect the copies (even though that is not what the statute requires), they would need to be, for example, digitally signed, which is an information technology solution that uses cryptography to make it extremely difficult to pass off an altered version of the copy as identical to the original. My examination of the PDF file provided by Heckel (https://cdn.muckrock.com/foia_files/ 2019/05/09/MuckRock_Calendar_Request_4-27 _-_5-4.pdf) shows no indication of a standard PDF digital signature.

E. RELIEF REQUESTED

I have a parallel pending complaint (Anonymous v. Dennis Herrera, Elizabeth Coolbrith, SOTF File No. 19044) against the Office of the City Attorney for similar (but not identical) cl~ims regarding alleged failure to disclose emails (not calendars) in their full, original electronic format. I ask the Task Force to keep in mind the possible confl.iCts of interest apparent in an attorney from the Office of City Attorney assisting the Task Force on this complaint, for which a ruling in my favor would tend to also favor finding against the City Attorney in case 19044 as well.

I ask the Task Force to find that the Office of the Mayor violated the Sunshine Ordinance (including any requirements of the CPRA incorporated by reference in SF Admin Code) on May 9, 2019.

I ask the Task Force to direct the Mayor or her delegate to produce the full calendars we originally requested, with redaction of only those headers or metadata (if any) that can be justified legally and explicitly.

I ask the Task Force to direct that calendars be produced by San Francisco agencies subject to the Sunshine Ordinance in their original format, preserving headers and metadata, except those that can be withheld with explicit justification.

I ask for a hearing, to the extent possible given my desire to remain anonymous.

I reserve my right to petition the Supervisor of Records and/ or any judicial remedies that may be available.

6 of 7

P724 #SFSOTF-72902-000006


encl: Exhibit A - Original Request and Communications with 1fayor's Office

encl: Exhibit B - Responsive record titled "MuckRock Calendar Request 4-27 - 5-4.pdf"

7 of 7

P725 #SFSOTF-72902-000007

Exhibit A

Correspondence with Office of Mayor The MuckRock system censors the email address as '[email protected]' in certain locations.

P726 #S FSOTF-72902-000008

Subject: California Public Records Act Request: April 28-May 4, 2019 Calendar - Immediate Disclosure ....

This is an Immediate Disclosure Request under the San Francisco Sunshine Ordinance, made before close of business May 8, 2019.



"1. an electronic copy, in the original electronic format, with all calendar item headers, email addresses, metadata, timestamps, attachments, appendices, exhibits, and inline images, except those explicitly exempted by the Ordinance, of the Mayor's calendar, with all items, from April 28 to May 4, 2019 (inclusive)."

We remind you of your obligations to provide electronic records in the original format you hold them in. Therefore, calendars exported in the .ics, iCalendar, or vCard formats with all nonexempt headers, metadata, attachments, etc. are best. Such formats are easily exportable from Google Calendar, Microsoft Outlook, Microsoft Exchange or other common calendaring/email systems.

However, if you choose to convert calendar items, for example, to PDF or printed format, to easily redact them, you must ensure that you have preserved the full content of the original calendar item record (as specified in request "1"), which contains many detailed headers beyond the ones generally printed out. If you instead provide PDFs or printed items with only a few of the headers or lacking attachments/images, and therefore withhold the other headers/attachments without justification, you may be in violation of SF Admin Code 67.26, 67.27, Govt Code 6253(a), 6253.9, and/or 6255, and we may challenge your decision.

Please provide only those copies of records available without any fees. If you determine certain records would require fees, please instead provide the required notice of which of those records are available and non-exempt for inspection in-person if we so choose. ·



We remind you of your obligation under City of San Jose v Superior Court (2017) to search personal accounts/devices for calendar items regarding the public's business, as appropriate.


#SFSOTF-72902-000009

~"' =,,"' '"'s: 0? 1' *""'- = ':/"'~:Z~'i!!:: 0~ ~"'oc~3:li;sr-- " " - A 0 "" -«="" ~ ""=" J !Y" ~ - J, w~

-ffiroiful: @'fifice o'fi t~e l'\lla;M0n ::_ - -~, __ = - -, ~ --- =- -_,;-~:: -~ --__ · -- - >- : ~ :~ - ©!5%ID8~~©n© · ~ ""' x "' "' ~ -

Subject: RE: Californi~ Public Records ActRequest: April 28-May 4, 2019 Calendcir-lmmediate: Disclos, ..

Received. We are processing our response.

Thank you,

· Hank Heckel Compliance Officer Office of Mayor London N. Breed City and County of San Francisco '(415) 554-4796

VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL Requestor: Anonymous

Email: [email protected]

May 9, 2019




Response Dated April 24, 2019


This information has been provided in a PDF format for its ease of transferability and accessibility, consistent with Cal. Gov. Code 6253.9(a)(1). Moreover, pursuant to Cal. Gov. Code 6253.9 (f), an agency is not required to provide an electronic record in an electronic format that would jeopardize or compromise the security or integrity of the original record. The PDF format · ensures the security and integrity of the original record.

Please also note that we are responding on behalf of the Mayor's Office only, and not on behalf of other city departments. ·

If you have any questions about your request or would like to submit another public records request, please feel free to contact us

at [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>. Best Regards,

Hank Heckel Compliance Officer · Office of Mayor London N. Breed City and County o·f San Francisco P728

#SFSOTF-72902-000010

MuckRock Calendar Request 4-27 - 5-4

<©View ~ Embed CT Download - -

Subject: RE: California Public Records Act Request: April 28.:.May 4, 2019 Calendar - lmmediateDisclos ...

We do not believe your arguments re: the acceptability of PDF format are valid and intend to contest them at the Sunshine Task Force. First, 6253.9(f) protects the integrity and security of the *original* record, not the copy of the record you provide to the public. Regardless, PDFs which are not digitally signed can be quite easily edited by anyone, no differently than editing say the .ics calendar file you could have provided to us. Second, 6253.9(a)(1) plainly requires provision of the in "any electronic format in which it holds the information" and we asked for the original format. Our understanding of computer systems indicates that format is not PDF.

In the mean time, I will point out that the original electronic format of the Mayor's calendar may contain substantial additional information (such as email addresses, conference call numbers, actual names of attendees instead of group descriptions, the acceptance/rejection of individual attendees to the invite, etc.) than that which was printed out for us. In addition to, and separately from, not being in the original format, by converting to PDF, you may have withheld such portions of the record from us, without pointing out to us that the portions were in fact withheld nor providing statutory justification for exemption (required by CPRA and the Sunshine Ordinance) nor providing the name and title of the official responsible for such withholding. Please provide all such information, if any information was withheld in the PDF you released to us, as compared to the original format. '


Thank you.

P729 #SFSOTF-72902-000011

Exhibit B Responsive record produced by Heckel on May 9, 2019

Page 4 of the calendar contained fonts missing on my computer - they appear to be merely bullet points.

PDF file available at: https:// cdn.muckrock.ccim/foia_files/2019 /05/09 /MuckRock_ Calendar_Request_ 4-2 7 _ -_5-4.pdf

P730 #SFSOTF-72902-000012

I April 27, 2019 Saturday

8:45 AM - 9:15 AM

11:55 AM - 1:25 PM

7:05 PM - 7:20 PM

7:35 PM - 8:00 PM

8:40 PM - 9:00 PM

I April 28, 2019. Sunday

12:30 PM - 1:00 PM

7:00 PM - 7:30 PM

I April 29, 2019 Monday

9:00 AM - 9:30 AM

1:05 PM - 1:30 PM

1:39 PM - 1:46 PM

1:51 PM - 2:10 PM

2:34 PM - 2:45 PM

PropG, Mayor (MYR)

North Beach Farmers Market 2019 Season Open -- 699 Columbus Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94133

12th Annual McKinley Elementary School Dogfest -- Duboce Park, Noe Street at Duboce Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94114

A Banner of Love Gala: A Night in Venice -- St. Mary's Cathedral, 1111 Gough St., San Francisco

San Francisco Gay Men's Chorus Crescendo Gala -- The Fairmont San Francisco, 950 Mason Street, Main Ballroom

Beyond Differences Gala -- Terra Gallery, 511 Harrison Street, San Francisco

St. Francis Wood Women's League Annual Luncheon -- The Olympic Club Lakeside, Garden Court, 599 Skyline Blvd, San Francisco, CA 94132

North Beach Citizens' Spring Dinner -- 666 Filbert Street, San Francisco CA 94133

Meeting Re: Staff Check In -- Remote Conference Call

Attendees: Mayor's Office Staff

Meeting with President Yee Re: District 7 -- City Hall, Room 200, Mayor's Office

Attendees: President Yee, Supervisor for District 7, Board of Supervisors Jen Lowe, Legislative Aide, Board of Supervisors Mayor's Office Staff

Press availability re: MT A Director -- City Hall, Room 200

Meeting Re: Scheduling -- City Hall, Room 200, Mayor's Office


Swearing In Ceremony for Sophie Maxwell and Tim Paulson -- City Hall, International Room

Attendees: Sophie Maxwell, Public Utilities Commission Appointee Tim Paulson, Public Utilities Commission Appointee

p -f 31 5/8/2019 2:49 PM

#SFSOTF-72902-000013

I April 29, 2019 Con.tinued Monday.· · . . ·

3:01 PM - 3:29 PM

3:31 PM - 4:03 PM

4:10 PM - 4:55 PM

6:00 PM - 6:30 PM

6:45 PM - 8:00 PM

I April 30,.·• 201 .. 9·· .. Tuesday· . ·

9:00 AM - 9:30 AM

10:35 AM - 10:50 AM

12:00 PM - 12:30 PM

12:35 PM - 1:15 PM

PropG, Mayor (MYR)

Harlan Kelly Jr., General Manager, San Francisco Public Utilities Commission

Larry Mazzola Jr., President (Plumbers & Pipe Fitters Local 38), Recreation and Park Commissioner

Sandra Duarte, Executive Assistant San Francisco Building and Construction Trades Council

Kim Tavaglione, Campaign Director San Francisco Labor Council Willie Adams, Port Commissioner Mayor's Office Staff

Meeting Re: Government Affairs -- City Hall, Room 200, Mayor's Office


Meeting Re: City Operations and Government Affairs -- City Hall, Room 200, Mayor's Office


Meeting Re: Housing Bond with Supervisor Yee and Members of Housing Bond Working Group -- City Hall, Room 201

Grace Cathedral Paris Sister City Event for Notre-Dame, Sri Lanka, Louisiana Churches, and Poway Synagogue -- Grace Cathedral, 1100 California Street

Recode Decode Podcast Live Recording -- Manny's 3092 16th Street



Public Works Week Awards and Pins Ceremony -- Moscone Center South, Third Floor, 747 Howard St.

Telephone Interview with LA Times Reporter Heidi Chang -- Remote Conference Call

Attendees:· Heidi Chang, Reporter, Los Angeles Times Mayor's Office Staff

Meeting Re: Budget -- City Hall, ROom 200, Mayor's Office


I

pf32 5/8/2019 2:49 PM

#SFSOTF-72902-000014

I April 30, 2019 C. on .. tinued Tuesday

1:34 PM - 1:50 PM

2:09 PM - 2:45 PM

2:46 PM - 3:10 PM

3:10 PM - 3:33 PM

I May 1, 2019 Wednesday

9:00 AM - 9:30 AM

10:00 AM - 10:30 AM

11:00 AM - 11:30 AM

12:00 PM - 12:15 PM

2:04 PM - 2:43 PM

2:43 PM - 2:46 PM

PropG, Mayor (MYR)

Meeting Re: Town Hall Event -- City Hall; Room 200, Mayor's Office


Meeting with San Francisco Latino Parity and Equity Coalition -- City Hall, Room 201

Meeting Re: ~cheduling -- City Hall, Room 200, Mayor's Office


Meeting Re: Government Affairs -~ City Hall, Room 200, Mayor's Office




Live Phone Interview with KIQI -- Remote Conference Call

Attendees: Isabel Gutierrez, KIQI radio host Marcos Gutierrez, KIQI radio host Mayor's Office Staff

Fire Station 5 Ribbon Cutting -- Fire Station No. 5, 1301 Turk St

Jewish Vocational Service Strictly Business Luncheon -- San Francisco Marriott Marquis Hotel, 780 Mission Street

Meeting Re: City Services and Operations -- City Hall, Room 200, Mayor's Office

Attendees: Naomi Kelly, City Administrator, City and County of San Francisco Heather Green, Capital Planning Director, City and County of San

Francisco Mayor's Office Staff

Swearing In Ceremony for Frank Fung -- City Hall, Room 200, Mayor's Office

Attendees: · Frank Fung, Planning Commissioner Aimee Fung, Daughter of Frank Fung Mayor's Office Staff

pj33 5/8/2019 2:49 PM

#SFSOTF-72902-000015 .

I May l, 2019 Continued Wednesday · · ·

2:46 PM - 3:13 PM

3:20 PM - 3:46 PM

4:03 PM - 4:35 PM

5:00 PM - 5:20 PM

5:30 PM - 6:00 PM

I ll/l•Y 2; 2019. • Thursday . · .

9:00 AM - 9:30 AM

12:04 PM - 12:25 PM

12:31 PM - 12:48 PM

PropG, Mayor (MYR)

Meeting Re: City Services and Operations -- City Hall, Room 200, Mayor's Office



Meet and Greet with Jamestown Community Center Youth -- City Hall, International Room

Meeting Re: Public Safety -- City Hall, Room 200 Mayor's Office

Attendees: Chief William Scott, SFPD Deirdre Hussey, Director of Policy and Public Affairs, SFPD Mayor's Office Staff

Neighborhood Preference Program Tour and SFGovTV Interview -- 150 Van Ness

Attendees: Mario Watts, resident Josiah Watts, resident Kim Dubin, Mayor's Office of Community Housing and Development Max Barnes, Mayor's Office of Community Housing and Development Mayor's Office Staff

Asian Pacific American Heritage Month Awards and Reception Celebration -- Herbst Theater, War Memorial Building, 401 Van Ness Avenue



Lest We Forget Photo Exhibit for Holocaust Remembrance Day -- City Hall, Room 200, Mayor's Office

Meeting re: Street Conditions -- City Hall, Room 200, Mayor's Office

Attendees: Chief William Scott, Chief of Police, San Francisco Police

Department Dr. Grant Colfax, Director, Department of Public Health Mohammed Nuru, Director, Department of Public Works Jeff Kositky, Director, Department of Homelessness and Supportive

Housing

I

Mary Ellen Carrol, Director, Department of Emergency Management Mayor's Office Staff

p-f34 5/8/2019 2:49 PM

#SFSOTF-72902-000016

I May 2, 2019 Continued Thursday

1:31 ,PM - 2:11 PM

2:14 PM - 2:34 PM

2:34 PM - 3:07 PM

3:10 PM - 3:41 PM

3:42 PM - 3:49 PM

5:30 PM - 6:00 PM

I Ma}' 3. , 201. 9 Friday

9:00 AM - 9:30 AM

1:00 PM - 1:30 PM

1May4, 2019 Saturday

3:30 PM - 4:30 PM

PropG, Mayor (MYR)

Meeting Re: Budget -- City Hall, Room 200, Mayor's Office


Meeting Re: Communications -- City Hall, Room 200, Mayor's Office


Meeting Re: Commissions -- City Hall, Room 200, MO


Meeting with Civil Grand Jury -- City Hall, Room 201


Attendees: Kylecia Broom, Community Development Assistant, Mayor's Office

of Housing and Community Development Steven Gallardo, Displaced Tenant Housing Preference Program

Coordinator, Mayor's Office of Housing and Community Development Mayor's Office Staff

Alliance of Black School Educators Scholarship and Salute Banquet -- African American Art and Culture Complex, 762 Fulton Street, 3rd Floor



Downtown Streets Team Mission Ribbon Cutting -- 3100 17th Street, San Francisco

San Francisco Lowrider Council Cinco De Mayo John O'Connell High School Car Show and Cruise -- John O'Connell High School Parking Lot, 2300 Block of Harrison Street

PT35 5/8/2019 2:49 PM

#SFSOTF-72902-000017

I

May 4, 2()19 Co.ntinu.ed. · ·1

Saturday · · ·. ·. . · . .

6:10 PM - 6:40 PM The Association of Chinese Teachers 50th Anniversary Gala --,Scottish Rite Masonic Center, 2850 19th Avenue

PropG, Mayor (MYR) pf35 5/8/2019 2:49 PM

#SFSOTF-72902-000018

I (BOS)


[email protected] Thursday, June 20, 2019 4:17 PM SOTF, (BOS) RE: California Public Records Act Request #19047

This message is from outside the City .email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

June 20, 2019


RE: SOTF File 19047

I am happy to appear telephonically on July 3. I cannot be physically present however. Please let me know conference call, Google Hangouts, Skype, or similar credentials by which I may answer any questions the Task Force may have. I do. believe, however, I have laid out all of my arguments in the documents below:

My files to consider and include in the agenda/packet: 1. My complaint: https://cdn.muckrock.com/outbound_request_attachments/Anonymous_2859385/72902/SF-MayorCa lendar-SOTF-Appea I-72902. pdf 3. My rebuttal to Respondents' response: https://cdn.muckrock.com/outbound_request_attachments/Anonymous_2859385/72902/SF-Mayor-Calendar-AppealSOTF-19047-followup.pdf

**Note this is a public mailbox, and that all of your responses (including disclosed records) may be automatically and instantly available to the public on the MuckRock.com service used to issue this request (though I am not a MuckRock representative).**

Thanks, Anonymous

Filed via MuckRock.com E-mail (Preferred): [email protected] Upload documents directly: https://accounts.muckrock.com/accounts/login/?url_auth_token=AAAxJlxKbHL78P4hPis991suo1Y%3Alhe61m%3AeMKS VFf3humduXhEOSJeYJB794k&next=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.muckrock.com%2Faccounts%2Flogin%2F%3Fnext%3D%252F accounts%252Fagency_login%252Foffice-of-the~mayor-3891%252Fapril-28-may-4-2019-calendar-immediate-disclosure

request-72902%252F%253Femail%253Dsotf%252540sfgov.org Is this email coming to the wrong contact? Something else wrong? Use the above link to let us know.


pj37

PLEASE NOTE: This request is not filed by a MuckRock staff member, but is being sent through Mucl<Rock by the above in order to better track, share, and manage public records requests. Also note that improperly addressed (i.e., with the. requester's name rather than "Mucl<Rock News" and the department number) requests might be returned as undeliverable.

On June 20, 2019: Subject: SOTF - Notice of Hearing - Compliance and Amendments Committee; July 3, 2019 4:30 p.m. Good Morning:

· You are receiving this notice because you are named as a Complainant or Respondent in one of the following complaints scheduled before the Compliance and Amendments Committee to: 1) hear the merits of the complaint; 2) issue a deten:nination; and/or 3) consider referrals from a Task Force Committee.

Date: July 3, 2019

Location: City Hall, Room 408

Time: 4:30 p.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. 19052: Complaint filed by Alex Koskinen against the Department of Public Health for allegedly violating . I

Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Section 67.25, by failing to respond to an Immediate Disclosure Request in a timely and/or complete manner.

File No. 19060: Complaint filed by Ashley Rhodes against the Arts Commission for allegedly violating Administrative Cod~, Section 67.21, by failing to respond to a request for public records in a timely and/or complete manner.

File No. 19025: Complaint filed by Jamie Whitaker against the Homelessness and Supportive Housing 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.

File No. 19047: Complaint filed by Anonymous against Mayor London Breed, Hank Heckel and the Office of the Mayor for allegedly violating Administrative Code, (Sunshine Ordinance) Sections 67.25 and 67.29-5, by failing to respond to a request for public records in a timely and/or complete manner.

Documentation (evidence supporting/disputing complaint)

For a document to be considered, it must be received at least five (5)working days before the hearing (see attached Public Complaint Procedure). For inclusion into the agenda packet, supplemental/supporting documents must be received by 5:00 pm, June 26, 2019.

Cheryl Leger


Pisa

Tel: 415-554-7724

<http://www.sfbos.org/index.aspx?page=104> Click here<http://www.sfbos.org/index.aspx?page=104> to complete a Board of Supervisors Customer Service Satisfaction form.


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 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.

On June 18, 2019: Subject: RE: California Public Records Act Request #19047 Mr. Heckel,


As I have noted in the past, the instant 19047 Task Force case raises similar (but not identical) issues to my case 19044 against the City Attorney's office. I was recently notified the by John Cote that the City Attorney's office will be working with their IT staff to further determine which metadata can be disclosed safely.

As your office I assume is advised by the the City Attorney's office on your metadata disclosure requirements as well, I hope your office and the City Attorney's office work with each other and the city's IT experts to come up with a

. reasonable set of spedfic metadata that must be withheld for security (and any other lawful exemption reasons), so the City has a consistent policy on such disclosure. I have sent Mr. Cote a similar email already.

I intend to continue to pursue both Task Force cases to ensure that, even if the respondents in both these cases eventually provide all non-exempt meta data, that the Task Force make a determination that the /prior/ responses of the agencies withholding metadata /in general/ were violations of the Sunshine Ordinance, in order to vindicate the right of the public to receive copies of non-exempt public records metadata when they ask for it.

Furthermore, and independently, I intend to pursue the argument that your office may not withhold (regardless of any metadata issues) calendar information merely because it is not on the Prop G list of minimum items the office must keep a record of.

Sincerely,

Anonymous

PT39

On June 7, 2019: Subject: RE: California Public Records Act Request #19047 Thank you for this. We are still working through the issues raised by your petition and appreciate your patience.

[cid:[email protected]]Bradley Russi Deputy City Attorney

. Office of City Attorney Dennis Herrera City Hall, Room 234 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Pl., San Francisco, CA 94102 www.sfcityattorney.org

On June 4, 2019: Subject: RE: California Public Records Act Request #19047 To the Supervisor of Records,

I previously petitioned you regarding my ref #72902, which is SOTF 19047, Anonymous v. Mayor London Breed and Hank Heckel, Office of the Mayor. The Mayor provided a response to us in the SOTF case at: https://cdn.muckrock.com/foia_files/2019/05/21/5.21.19_Response_to_SOTF _Complaint_File_19047 _Re_Request_of_ Anonymous.pdf I have also sent a rebuttal to the SOTF: https://cdn.muckrock.com/outbound_request_attachments/Anonymous_2859385/72902/SF-Mayor-Calendar-Appeal-

. SOTF-19047-followup.pdf

I hope this additional information may be of use to you, and I look forward to your response.


On June 4, 2019: Subject: RE: California Public Records Act Request #19047 RE: SOTF - File No. 19047

Mr. Heckel, Mayor Breed, and Honorable Members of the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force,

I have attached a rebuttal to Mr. Hecke l's response. I hope your Task Force will consider my complaint soon .

. ** Note that all of your responses (including disclosed records) may be automatically and instantly available to the public on the MuckRock.com.service used to issue this request (though I am not a MuckRock representative). **

Sincerely; Anonymous

On May 8, 2019: Subject: California Public Records Act Request: April 28-May 4, 2019 Calendar - Immediate Disclosure Request This is an Immediate Disclosure Request under the San Francisco Sunshine Ordinance, made before close of business May 8, 2019.



"1. an electronic copy, in the original electronic format, with all calendar item headers, email addresses, metadata, timestamps, attachments, appendices, exhibits1 and inline images1 except those explicitly exempted by the Ordinance, of the Mayor's calendar1 with all items, from April 28 to May 4, 2019 (inclusive)."

We remind you of your obligations to provide electronic records in the original format you hold them in. Therefore1

calendars exported in the .ics1 iCalendar1 or vCard formats with all non-exempt headers, metadata1 attachments, etc. are . best. Such formats are easily exportable from Google Calendar1 Microsoft Outlook, Microsoft Exchange or other common calendaring/email systems.

However, if you choose to convert calendar items1 for example, to PDF or printed format1 to easily redact them1 you must ensure that you have preserved the full content of the original calendar item record (as specified in request "l"L which contains many detailed headers beyond the ones generally printed out. If you instead provide PDFs or printed items with only a few ofthe headers or lacking attachments/images1 and therefore withhold the other headers/attachments withoutjustification1 you may be in violation of SF Admin Code 67.26, 67.27, Govt Code 6253(aL 6253.9, and/or 6255, and we may challenge your decision.




Filed via MuckRock.com E-mail (Preferred): [email protected] Upload documents directly: https://accounts.muckrock.com/accounts/login/?url_auth_token=AAAxJlxKbHL78P4hPis99lsuo1Y%3A1he61m%3AeMK5 VFf3humduXhEOSJeYJB794k&next=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.muckrock.com%2Faccounts%2Flogin%2F%3Fnext%3D%252F accounts%252Fagency_login%252Foffice-of-the-mayor-3891%252Fapril-28-may-4-2019-calendar-immediate-disclosurerequest-72902%252F%253Femail%253Dsotf%252540sfgov.org . Is this email coming to the wrong contact? Something else wrong? Use the above link to let us know.


PLEASE NOTE: This request is not filed by a MuckRock staff member, but is being sent through MuckRock by the above in order to better track1 share1 and manage public records requests. Also note that improperly addressed (i.e. 1 with the requester's name rather than "MuckRock News'' and the department number) requests might be returned as undeliverable.

PT41

. Leger, Cheryl (BOS)

From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject:

[email protected] Tuesday, June 25, 2019 3:34 PM SOTF, (BOS) Heckel, Hank (MYR) RE: California Public Records Act Request #19047


June 25, 2019


Thank you for the notice. I acknowledge receipt and have no objection to the continuance in 19047.

I would appreciate a response to my prior request to appear telephonically at the hearing, when you reschedule it - as 1. cannot be physically present. Please let m.e know conference call, Google Hangouts, Skype, or similar credentials by which I may answer any questions the Task Force may have.


Thanks, Anonymous

Filed via MuckRock.com E-mail (Preferred): [email protected] Upload documents directly: https://accounts.muckrock.com/accounts/login/?url_auth_token=AAAxJlxKbHL78P4hPis991suo1Y%3Alhfu1D%3AwdOzT QXn91jKNkiD5rDe8zMwH7c&next=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.muckrock.com%2Faccounts%2Flogin%2F%3Fnext%3D%252Fa ccounts%252Fagency_login%252Foffice-of-the-mayor-3891%252Fapril-28-may-4-2019-calendar-immediate-disclosurerequest-72902%252F%253Femail%253Dsotf%252540sfgov.org Is this email coming to the wrong contact? Something else wrong? Use the above link to let us know.


PLEASE NOTE: This request is not filed by a MuckRock staff member, but is being sent through Mucl<Rock by the above in order to better track, share, and manage public records requests. Also note that improperly addressed (i.e., with .the requester's name rather than "MuckRock News" and the department number) requests might be returned as undeliverable.

PT42

On June 25, 2019: · Subject: SOTF - Request for a continuance by Respondent Dear Anonymous:

I just received a phone call from Hank Heckel of the Mayor's office who notified me that he will be out of the office on July 3 and therefore unavailable for the Compliance and Amendments Committee hearing on that date. Mr. Heckel also stated that there is no other person most knowledgeable available to attend this hearing from the Mayor's office. This request refers to file no. 19047 (complaint description below). By way ofthis email, I am also notifying the Chair ofthat Committee of the Respondent's request. Please acknowledge receipt of this message. Thank you.


Cheryl Leger Assistant Clerk, Board of Supervisors Tel: 415-554-7724

[CustomerSatisfactionlcon]<http://www.sfbos.org/index.aspx?page=104> Click here<http://www.sfbos.org/index.aspx?page=104> to complete a Board of Supervisors Customer Service Satisfaction form.


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 submitto 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.

On June 20, 2019: Subject: RE: California Public Records Act Request #19047 RE: SOTF File 19047

I am happy to appear telephonically on July 3. I cannot be physically present however. Please let me know conference call, Google Hangouts, Skype, or similar credentials by which I may answer any questions the Task Force may have. I do believe, however, I have laid out all of my arguments in the documents below:

My files to consider and include in the agenda/packet: 1. My complaint: https://cdn.muckrock.com/outbound_request_attachments/ Anonymous_2859385/72902/SF-MayorCalendar-SOTF-Appea I-72902.pdf 3. My rebuttal to Respondents' response: https://cdn.muckrock.com/outbound_request_attachments/Anonymous_2859385/72902/SF-Mayor-Calendar-AppealSOTF-19047-followup.pdf

PT43


Thanks, Anonymous

On June 20, 2019: Subject: SOTF - Notice of Hearing - Compliance and Amendments Committee; July 3, 2019 4:30 p.m. Good Morning:

You are receiving this notice because you are named.as a Complainant or Respondent in one of the following complaints scheduled before the Compliance and Amendments Committee to: 1) hear the merits of the complaint; 2) issue a determination; and/or 3) consider referrals from a Task Force Committee.

Date: July 3, 2019


Time: 4:30 p.m.


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. 19052: Complaint filed by Alex Koskinen against the Department of Public Health for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Section 67.25, by failing to respond to an Immediate Disclosure Request in a timely and/or complete manner.

File No. 19060: Complaint filed by Ashley Rhodes against the Arts Commission for allegedly violating Administrative Code, Section 67 .21, by failing to respond tci a request for public records in a timely and/or complete manner.

File No. 19025: Complaint filed by Jamie Whitaker against the Homelessness and Supportive Housing 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.



For a document to be considered, it must be received at least five (5) working days before the hearing (see attached Public Complaint Procedure). For inclusion into the agenda packet, supplemental/supporting documents must be received by 5:00 pm, June 26, 2019.

Cheryl Leger

PT44


Tel: 415-554-7724



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 th'at 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.

On June 18, 2019: Subject: RE: California Public Records Act Request #19047 Mr. Heckel,


As I have noted in the past, the instant 19047 Task Force case raises similar (but not identical) issues to my case 19044 against the City Attorney's office. I was recently notified the by John Cote that the City Attorney's office will be working with their IT staff to further determine which metadata can be disclosed safely.

As your office I assume is advised by the the City Attorney's office on your metadata disclosure requirements as well, I hope your office and the City Attorney's office work with each other and the city's IT experts to come up with a reasonable set of specific metadata that must be withheld for security (and any other lawful exemption reasons), so the City has a consistent policy on such disclosure. I have sent Mr. Cote a similar email already.

I intend to continue to pursue both Task Force cases to ensure that, even if the respondents in both these cases eventually provide all non-exempt meta data, that the Task Force make a determination thatthe /prior/ responses of the agencies withholding metadata /in general/ were violations of the Sunshine Ordinance, in order to vindicate the right of the public to receive copies of non-exempt public records metadata when they ask for it.

Furthermore, and independently, I intend to pursue the argument that your office may not withhold (regardless of any metadata issues) calendar information merely because it is not on the Prop G list.of minimum items the office must keep a record of.

Sincerely,

Anonymous

On June 7, 2019: Subject: RE: California Public Records Act Request #19047 Thank you for this. We are still working through the issues raised by your petition and appreciate your patience.

[cid:[email protected]]Bradley Russi Deputy City Attorney Office of City Attorney Dennis Herrera City Hall, Room 234 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Pl., San Francisco, CA 94102 www.sfcityattorney.org



We request under the San Francisco Sunshine Ordinance (Ordinance) and the California Public Records Ad (CPRA):



However, if you choose to convert calendar items, for example, to PDF or printed format, to easily redact them, you must ensure that you have preserved the full content of the original calendar item record (as specified in request 11 111

),

which contains many detailed headers beyond the ones generally printed out. If you instead provide PDFs or printed. items with only a few of the headers or lacking attachments/images, and therefore withhold the other headers/attachments without justification, you may be in violation of SF Admin Code 67.26, 67.27, Govt Code 6253(a), 6253.9, and/or 6255, and we may challenge your decis.ion.

Please provide only those copies of records available without any fees .. If you determine certain records would require fees, please instead provide the required notice of which of those records are available and non-exempt for inspection in-person if we so choose.



Filed via MuckRock.com E-mail (Preferred): [email protected] Upload documents directly: https://accounts.muckrock.com/accounts/login/?url_auth_token=AAAxJlxKbHL78P4hPis991suo1Y%3Alhfu1D%3AwdOzT

Pt46

QXn91jKNkiDSrDe8zMwH7c&next=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.muckrock.com%2Faccounts%2Flogin%2F%3Fnext%3D%252Fa ccounts%252Fagency_login%252Foffice-of-the-mayor-3891%252Fapril-28-may-4-2019-calendar-immediate-disclosurerequest-72902%252F%253Femail%253Dsotf%252540sfgov.org Is this email coming to the wrong contact? Something else wrong? Use the above link to let us know.

For mailed responses, please address (see note): MuckRock News DEPT MR 72902

411A Highland Ave Somerville, MA 02144-2516

PLEASE NOTE: This request'is not filed by a MuckRock staff member, but is being sent through MuckRock by the above in order to better track, share, and manage public records requests. Also note that improperly addressed (i.e., with the requester's name rather than "MuckRock News" and the department number) requests might be returned as undeliverable.

p-f4 7

Leger, Cheryl (BOS)


[email protected] Monday, July 1, 2019 2:11 PM SOTF, (BOS) RE: California Public Records Act Request #19047


July 1, 2019


I {anonymous in 19047} am happy to appear telephonically on July 23. I cannot be physically present however. Please let me know conference call, Google Hangouts, Skype, or similar credentials by which I may answer any questions the Task Force may have. I do believe, however, I have laid out all of my arguments in the documents below:

My files to consider and include in the agenda/packet: 1. My complaint: https://cdn.muckrock.com/outbound_request_attachments/Anonymous....:.2859385/72902/SF-MayorCalenda r-SOTF-Appea I-72902. pdf 3. My rebuttal to Respondents' response: https://cdn.muckrock.com/outbound_request_attachments/Anonymous_2859385/72902/SF-Mayor-Calendar-AppealSOTF-19047-followup.pdf

**Note this is a public mailbox, and that all of your responses {including disclosed records} may be automatically and· instantly available to the public on the MuckRock.com service used to issue this request {though I am not a MuckRock

representative).**

Thanks, Anonymous

Filed via MuckRock.com · E-mail (Preferred): [email protected] Upload documents directly: https://accounts.muckrock.com/accounts/login/?next=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.muckrock.com%2Faccounts%2Flogin%2F %3 Fnext%3 0%252 Facco l:I nts%252 Fage ncy _logi n%252Fofflce-of-the-m ayo r-3891%252 Fa p ri 1-28-m ay-4-2019-ca lend a rim med iate-d iscl osu re-request-72902 %252 F%253 Fema il%253 Dsotf%252540sfgov .org&url_ auth_ token=AAAxJ lxKbH L78P4h Pis99 lsuol Y%3Alhi3Zk%3Ag y _ wq b5xJIHyKsYDm pd rE3d RyQU Is this email coming to the wrong contact? Something else wrong? Use the above link to let us know. ·

. For mailed responses, please address (see note): MuckRock News DEPT MR 72902 411A Highland Ave

Somerville, MA 02144-2516

PT48


On July 1, 2019: Subject: SOTF - Notice of Appearance - Complaint Committee; July 23, 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 Complaint Committee to: 1) hear the merits of the complaint; 2) issue a determination; and/or 3) consider referrals from a Task Force Committee.

Date: July 23, 2019


Time: 5:30 p.m.



Complaints:

File No. 19044: Complaint filed by Anonymous against Dennis Herrera and the Office of the City Attorney for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Sections 67.21, by failing to respond to a public records request in a timely and/or complete manner.



File No. 19060: Complaint filed by Ashley Rhodes against the Arts Commission for allegedly violating Administrative Code, Section 67.21, by failing to respond to a request for public records in a timely and/or complete manner.

File No. 19025: Complaint filed by Jamie Whitaker against the Homelessness and Supportive Housing 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.


For a document to be considered, it must be received at least five (5) working days before the hearing (see attached Public Complaint Procedure). For inclusion into the agenda packet, supplemental/supporting documents must be received by 5:00 pm, July 16, 2019.

PT49

Cheryl Leger


Tel: 415-554-7724



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 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.

On June 25, 2019: Subject: RE: California Public Records Act Request #19047 Thank you for the notice. I acknowledge receipt and have no objection to the continuance in 19047.

I would appreciate a response to my prior request to appear telephonically at the hearing, when·you reschedule it - as I cannot be physically present. Please let me know conference call, Google Hangouts, Skype, or similar credentials by which I may answer any questions the Task Force may have.


Thanks, Anonymous

On June 25, 2019: Subject: SOTF - Request for a continuance by Respondent Dear Anonymous:

· I just received a phone call from Hank Heckel of the Mayor's office who notified me that he will be out of the office on July 3 and therefore unavailable for the Coinpiiance and Amendments Committee hearing on that date. Mr. Heckel also stated that there is no other person most knowledgeable available to attend this hearing from the Mayor's office. This request refers to file no. 19047 (complaint description below). By way of this email, I am also notifying the Chair of that Committee of the Respondent's request. Please acknowledge receipt of this message. Thank you.

PT50

File No.19047: Complaint filed by Anonymous against Mayor London Breed, Hank Heckel and the Office of the Mayor for allegedly violating Administrative Code, (Sunshine Ordinance) Sections 67.25 and 67.29-5, by failing to respond to a request for public records in a timely and/or complete manner.




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 reg<Jrding 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.

On June 20, 2019: Subject: RE: California Public Records Act Request #19047 RE: SOTF File 19047

I am happy to appear telephonically on July 3. I cannot be physically present however. Please let me know conference call, Google Hangouts, Skype, or similar credentials by which I may answer any questions the Task .Force may have. I do believe, however, I have laid out all of my arguments in the documents below:

My files to consider and include in the agenda/packet: 1. My complaint: https://cdn.muckrock.com/outbound_request_attachments/Anonymous_2859385/72902/SF-MayorCa lenda r-SOTF-Appea I-72902. pdf 3. My rebuttal to Respondents' response: https://cdn.muckrock.com/outbound_request_attachments/Anonymous_2859385/72902/SF-Mayor-Calendar-AppealSOTF-19047-followup.pdf


Thanks, Anonymous

On June 20, 2019: Subject: SOTF - Notice of Hearing - Compliance and Amendments Committee; July 3, 2019 4:30 p.m. · Good Morning:

You are receiving this notice because you are named as a Complainant or Respondent in one of the following complaints scheduled before the Compliance and Amendments Committee to: 1) hear the merits of the complaint; 2) issue a determination; and/or 3) consider referrals from a Task Force Committee.

Date: July 3, 2019

Location: City Hall, Room.408

Time: 4:30 p.m.



Complaints:


File No. 19060: Complaint filed by Ashley Rhodes against the Arts Commission for allegedly violating Administrative Code, Section 67 .21, by failing to respond to a request for public records in a timely and/or complete manner.

File No. 19025: Complaint filed by Jamie Whitaker against the Homelessness and _Supportive Housing 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.




Cheryl Leger


Tel: 415-554-7724

<http://www.sfbos.org/index.aspx?page=104> Click here<http://www.sfbos.org/index.aspx?p·age=104> to complete a Board of Supervisors Customer Service Satisfaction form.

PT52


Disclosures: Personal information that is provided in communications to the Board of Supervisors is subject to disdosure 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.




"1. an electronic copy, in the original electronic format, with all calendar item headers, email addresses, meta data, timestamps, attachments, appendices, exhibits, and inline images, except those explicitly exempted by the Ordinance, of the Mayor's calendar, with all items, from April28 to May 4, 2019 (inclusive)."

We remind you of your obligations to provide electronic records in the original format you hold them in. Therefore, calendars exported in the .ics, iCalendar, or vCard formats with all non-exempt headers, metadata, attachments, etc. are best. Such formats are easily exportable from Google Calendar, Microsoft Outlook, Microsoft Exchange or other common calendaring/email systems.

However, if you choose to convert calendar items, for example, to PDF or printed format, to easily redact them, you must ensure that you have preserved the full content of the original calendar item record (as specified in request "1"), which contains many detailed headers beyond the ones generally printed out. If you instead provide PDFs or printed items with only a few of the headers or lacking attachments/images, and therefore withhold the other headers/attachments without justification, you may be in violation of SF Admin Code 67 .26, 67 .27, Govt Code 6253(a), 6253.9, and/or 6255, and.we may challenge your decision.




. Filed via MuckRock.com E-mail (Preferred): 72902-46637773@requests:muckrock.com

pf53

Upload documents directly: https://accounts.muckrock.com/accounts/login/?next=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.muckrock.com%2Facc9unts%2Flogin%2F %3Fnext%3D%252Faccounts%252Fagency_login%252Foffice-of-the-mayor-3891%252Fapril-28-may-4-2019-calendarimmediate-disclosure-request-72902%252F%253Femail%253Dsotf%252540sfgov.org&url_auth_token=AAAxJlxKbHL78P4hPis99lsuo1Y%3A1hi3Zk%3Ag y_wqb5xJIHyKsYDmpdrE3dRyQU Is this email coming to the wrong contact? Something else wrong? Use the above link to let us know.



Pi54


I (BOS)

[email protected] Wednesday, August 21, 2019 10:53 AM SOTF, (BOS) RE: California Public Records Act Request #19047


August 21, 2019



No, this specific issue was not discussed at Aug. 20 meeting. I believe you may be referring to: At last night's meeting, I pointed out that the Supervisor of Records has refused to provide a timely (10-day) opinion in *19044*, where he is already the respondent in the case as the City Attorney. Therefore, during questioning by the Committee, I asked the SOTF to find (in addition to other violations) a timeliness violation in 19044 on that basis.

The complaint here is against the Supervisor of Records' (in)actions in *19047* as violating the timeliness requirement of 67.21(d). Since only the Mayor, and not the Sup. of Records, is the respondent in 19047, I did not make those allegations against the Sup. of Records last night as it does not seem fair to do so without giving notice that they would need to appear for 19047. I know of no way to compel an opinion except filing a new complaint each time the Sup. of Records fails to perform their duties under 67.21(d). If I don't make the specific allegation, I don't know if the SOTF would have the authority to make any orders re: each failure.

I understand the SOTF may want to combine this new complaint with 19047 under its procedures, however I'll point out that the respondents, types of allegations, and the legal question to be resolved would be different (ex. "Are native electronic formats, metadata/headers, and non-Prop G calendars exempt from Sunshine Ordinance?" VS "Can the Sup. of Records fail to provide an opinion within 10 days of a petition?").

If your procedure/bylaws allows you to skip the committee intake process at your discretion, I respectfully request that this complaint be considered for such process. I'm not sure what additional fact-finding can be done in this case.


======

Complaint against whieh Department or Commission Supervisor of Records (aka City Attorney)

Name of individual contacted at Department or Commission Dennis Herrera (City Attorney), Bradley Russi (Deputy City Attorney)

PT55

Alleged Violation Public Records

Sunshine Ordinance Section: 67.21(d)

Please describe alleged violation: If the Task Force has any mechanism to take up this complaint as the SOTF en bane, instead of first via a committee, to · avoid months of waiting, I would like to take that path. The Supervisor of Records' violation of the Sunshine Ordinance is especially dangerous to San Francisco's public records regime, since it is he who is responsible (among others) for enforcing the public's access to records.·

SF Admin Code 67.21(d) states. " ... 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 .... "

There are no extensions or exceptions to this 10 day deadline.

I petitioned the Supervisor of Records on May 15th for a determination re: the records at issue in SOTF 19047, Anonymous vs. Mayor (re: electronic calendar records). The deadline was therefore May 25, no later, for a legal opinion from the Supervisor of Records.

On May 21st, Deputy City Attorney Russi said " I hope to have a response to you no later than the end of next week." On June 7th, Russi said "We are still working through the issues raised by your petition and appreciate your patience." On July 1st, Russi said they " ... won't be able to respond to your petitions until next week." On July 24th, Russi said "We are continuing to look into the questions you have raised and hope to be able to provide a response soon." ·

This is a clear violation of 67.21(d).

[[ Please note the Supervisor of Records has similarly delayed a response to a petition re: SOTF 19044, but since the respondent in 19044 is the City Attorney himself (who is in fact the Supervisor of Records), that allegation is being handled in 19044 itself:]]

Name Anonymous

Email 72902-4663 7773@req uests.m uckrock.com <mailto:72902-46637773@req uests.m uckrock.com>

If anonymous, please let us know how to contact you. Thank you. Email [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>

Filed via MuckRock.com E-mail (Preferred): [email protected] Upload documents directly: https://accounts.muckrock.com/accounts/login/?next=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.muckrock.com%2Faccounts%2Flogin%2F %3Fnext%3D%252Faccounts%252Fagency_login%252Foffice-of-the-mayor-3891%252Fapril-28-may-4-2019-calendarimmediate-disclosure-request-72902%252F%253Femail%253Dsotf%252540sfgov.org&url_auth_token=AAAxJlxKbHL78P4hPis99lsuo1Y%3A1iOUmy%3A

kX_AjKToQ7oorn8Pyfm6iwLMUKM Is this email coming to the wrong contact? Something else wrong? Use the above link to let us know.

Piss

For mailed responses, please address (see note): . MuckRock News

DEPT MR 72902 411A Highland Ave Somerville, MA 02144-2516


On Aug. 21, 2019: Subject: RE: New Response Complaint Form Dear Anonymous:

It is the process of the Sunshine Task Force to have complaints heard at the Committee level first to determine if the records are public, there is jurisdiction and whether or not to forward to the SOTF for review and to make a ruling on the matter. The complaint below seems to be your commentary of what took place during the hearing last night. Can you please confirm if this is true? Thank you.



The Legislative Research Center<http://www.sfbos.org/index.aspx?page=9681> 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 memb~rs of the public for inspection and copying. The Clerk's Office does not redact any information from these submissions. This means that personal informatidn-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.

On Aug. 21, 2019: Subject: RE: California Public Records Act Request #19047 Thank you for considering my case 19047 last night and moving it to the full SOTF.

When this case is agendized for the SOTF, please note: Your current caption for the 19047 case states an allegation re: 67:25 and 67 .29-5, but I actually alleged that Respondent violated all of Admin Code 67.21, 67.26, 67.27 and Govt code 6253, 6253.9, and 6255 (incorporated via Admin Code

PT57

67.21(k)). {67.29-5 appears to be Respondent's "defense," it is not my allegation. There was no 67.25 timeliness allegation either.)

On Aug. 20, 2019: Subject: RE: California Public Records Act Request #19047 I have called (415) 554-9632 repeatedly. Your phone picks up but no one is there. I had just spoken .to you about twenty minutes ago. Is something wrong?

On Aug. 20, 2019: Subject: RE: SOTF - Complaint Committee Hearing of August 20, 2019; 5:30 PM Dear Callers:

Please make certain to call before the start of the meeting which is 5:30. If you could call at 5:15 PM that would be ideal so that you can hear the proceeding and I will know that you are on the telephone line. I will have both of you on mute u.ntil your matter is called at which time I will ask if you can hear me. Looking forward to hearing your case.




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 ofthe 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.

On Aug. 16, 2019: Subject: RE: California Public Records Act Request #19047 Thank you so much!


** Note that all of your responses (including disclosed records) may be automatically and instantly available to the public on the MuckRock.com service used to issue this request (though I am not a MuckRock representative).**

We request under the San Francisco Sunshine Ordinance (Ordinance) and the California Pub.lie Records Act (CPRA):

"1. an electronic copy, in the original electronic format, with all calendar item headers, email addresses, meta data, timestamps, attachments, appendices, exhibits, and inline images, except those explicitly exempted by the Ordinance, of the Mayor's calendar, with all items, from April 28 to May 4, 2019 (inclusive)."


However, if you choose to convert calendar items, for example, to PDF or printed format, to easily redact them, you must ensure that you have preserved the full content of the original calendar item record (as specified in request "1"), which contains many detailed headers beyond the ones generally printed out. If you instead provide PDFs or printed items with only a few of the headers or lacking attachments/images, and therefore withhold the other headers/attachments without justification, you may be in violation of SF Admin Code 67.26, 67 .27, Govt Code 6253(a), 6253.9, and/or 6255, and we may challenge your decision.




Filed via MuckRock.com E-mail (Preferred): [email protected] Upload documents directly: https://accounts.muckrock.com/accounts/login/?next=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.muckrock.com%2Faccounts%2Flogin%2F %3Fnext%3D%252Faccounts%252Fagency_login%252Foffice-of-the-mayor-3891%252Fapril-28-may-4-2019-calendarimmediate-disclosure-re.quest-72902%252F%253Femail%253Dsotf%252540sfgov.org&url_auth_token=AAAxJlxKbHL78P4hPis99lsuo1Y%3A1iOUmy%3A kX_AjKToQ7oorn8Pyfm6iwLMUKM Is this email coming to the wrong contact? Something else wrong? Use the above link to let us know.



PT59


I (BOS)

[email protected] Wednesday, August 21, 2019 3:36 AM SOTF, (BOS)

RE: California Public Records Act Request #19047


August 21, 2019


Thank you for considering my case 19047 last night and moving it to the full SOTF.

When this case is agendized for the SOTF, please note: Your current caption for the 19047 case states an allegation re: 67 .25 and 67.29-5, but I actually alleged that Respondent violated all of Admin Code 67.21, 67.26, 67.27 and Govt Code 6253, 6253.9, and 6255 (incorporated via.Admin Code 67.21{k)). (67.29-5 appears to be Respondent's "defense," it is not my allegation. There was no 67.25 timeliness allegation either.)

Filed via MuckRock.com E-mail (Preferred): [email protected] Upload documents directly: https://accounts.muckrock.com/accounts/login/?url--'auth_token=AAAxJlxKbHL78P4hPis99lsuo1Y%3A1iONxh%3AsKxxOs xzll4jSi8iqHd7p4MbXIM&next=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.muckrock.com%2Faccounts%2Flogin%2F%3Fnext%3D%252Facco unts%252Fagency_login%252Foffice-of-the-mayor-3891%252Fapril-28-may-4-2019-calendar-immediate-disclosurerequest-72902%252F%253Femail%253Dsotf%252540sfgov.org Is this email coming to the wrong contact? Something else wrong? Use the above link to let us know.


PLEASE NOTE: This request is not filed by a MuckRock staff member, but is being sent through MuckRock by the above in order to better track, share, and manage public records requests. Also note that improperly addressed (i.e., with the requester1s name rather than "MuckRock News" and the department number) requests might be returned as

undeliverable.

On Aug. 20, 2019: Subject: RE: California Public Records Act Request #19047 I have called (415) 554-9632 repeatedly. Your phone picks up but no one is there. I had just spoken to you about twenty minutes ago. Is something wrong?

P761

On Aug. 20, 2019: Subject: RE: SOTF - Complaint Committee Hearing of August 20, 2019; 5:30 PM Dear Callers:

Please make certain to call before the start of the meeting which is 5:30. If you could call at 5:15 PM that would be ideal so that you can hear the proceeding and I will know that you are on the telephone line. I will have both of you on mute until your matter is called at which time I will ask if you can hear me. Looking forward to hearing your case.




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 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.

On Aug. 16, 2019: Subject: RE: California Public Records Act Request#19047 Thank you so much!

On Aug. 15, 2019: Subject: SOTF - Complaint Committee Hearing of August 20, 2019; 5:30 PM Dear Anonymous:

By now you should have received the Agenda packet sent to you this morning regarding the upcoming hearing on your complaints. Since your matters will be heard at the end of the hearing, I am asking that you be named Callers No. 1 · (72056, File No. 19044) and No. 2 {72902, File No. 19047); items 7 and 8, respectively. You need to call in to 415-554-9632 before the hearing begins to make certain that both of you are on line and can hear the proceeding. You will be able to hear the audio from the room on the phone line. Please note that this is a conference line so both parties will be on the line at the same time. If you have further questions regarding calling in, please let me know. Thank you.


PTs2


The Legislative Research Center<http://www.sfbos.org/index.aspx?page=9681> provides 24-hour access to Board of Supervisors legislation, and archived matters since August i998.

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 submissiohs. 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.

On Aug. 15, 2019: Subject: SOTF - Agenda for Complaint Committee hearing of August 20, 2019 Dear SOTF Parties:

The agenda packet for the August 20, 2019, Complaint Committee of the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force, 5:30 pm hearing is available on line at the following link:

https:// sf gov .org/ sunshine/ sites/default/files/ com pl a int082019 _agenda .pdf

The packet material is linked to each item listed on the agenda mark with an "attachment". Click anywhere on the title of the item to open the link to the pdf of the packet material in question.


[ CustomerSatisfaction lco n]<http://www.sfbos.org/index.aspx?page=104> Click here<http://www.sfbos.org/index.aspx?page=104> to complete a Board of Supervisors Customer Service Satisfaction form.



PT63

On May 8, 2019: Subject: California Public Records Act Request: April 28-May 4, 2019 Calendar - Immediate Disclosure Request This is an Immediate Disclosure Request under the San. Francisco Sunshine Ordinance, made before close of business

May 8, 2019.



11 1. an electronic copy, in.the original electronic format, with all calendar item headers, email addresses, metadata, timestamps, attachments, appendices, exhibits, and inline images, except those explicitly exempted by the Ordinance, of the Mayor's calendar, with all items, from April 28 to May 4, 2019 (inclusive)."

We remind you of your obligations to provide electronic records in the. original format you hold them in. Therefore, calendars exported in the .ics, iCalendar, or vCard formats with all non-exempt headers, metadata, attachments, etc. are best. Such formats are easily exportable from Google Calendar, Microsoft Outlook, Microsoft Exchange or other common calendaring/email systems.

However, if you choose to convert calendar items, for example, to PDF or printed format, to easily redact them, you must ensure that you have preserved the full content of the original calendar item record (as specified in request 11 1"), which contains many detailed headers beyond the ones generally printed out. If you instead provide PDFs or printed items with only a few of the headers or lacking attachments/images, and therefore withhold the other headers/attachments without justification, you may be in violation of SF Admin Code 67.26, 67.27, Govt Code 6253(a), 6253.9, and/or 6255, and we may challenge your decision.




Filed via MuckRock.com E-mail (Preferred): [email protected] Upload documents directly: https://accounts.muckrock.com/accounts/login/?url_auth_token=AAAxJlxKbHL78P4hPis991suo1 Y%3A1iONxh%3AsKxxOs xzl 14jSi8iq Hd7p4M bXI M &next~https%3A%2 F%2Fwww.muckrock.com%2Faccounts%2 Flogin%2F%3 Fnext%3 D%252Facco unts%252Fagency_login%252Foffice-of-the-mayor-3891%252Fapril-28-may-4-2019-calendar-immediate-disclosurerequest-72902%252F%253Femail%253Dsotf%252540sfgov.org Is this email coming to the wrong contact? Something else wrong? Use the above I.ink to let us kn.ow.


PLEASE NOTE: This request is not filed by a MuckRock staff member, but is being sent through Muck.Rock by the above in order to better track, share, and manage public records requests. Also note that improperly addressed (i.e., with the requester's name rather than "MuckRock News" and the department number) requests might be returned as undeliverable.

PJ65

Leger, Cheryl (BOS)


Attachments:

[email protected] Friday, September 6, 2019 1 :09 PM SOTF, (BOS) RE: California Public Records Act Request: More Calendars - Immediate Disclosure Request 79117-SupervisorPetition-20190906_3Fx53BW.pdf; Exhibit-A-Anonymous_Request_-_Responsive_Calendar_8.5.19_to_8.16.19_Mcm81 y2.pdf; ExhibitB-and-C_6GXpu5n.pdf


September 6, 2019

This is a follow up to a previous request:

**RE: File 19047**

Good afternoon SOTF,

Attached is additional supporting evidence in case 19047; please add it to the file.

On Aug. 20, the complaint committee asked questions regarding what non-Prop G calendars the Mayor's Office may possess and what metadata is being withheld.

In order to avoid the respondents from.skirting the issue through an odd interpretation of the phrase "the Mayor's calendar" in 19047, I requested in far more detail a lot more calendars immediately after that committee meeting.

1. The evidence (attached Exhibits A and C) shows the Mayor has *at least 2* computerized calendars, one labeled "PropG, Mayor (MYR)" and another "Calendar, Mayor (MYR)". All such calendars are public records.

2. As described in my new petition to the Sup. of Records (also attached), Exhibit C shows definitively that there is at least some metadata being withheld which has no relationship to IT security information - namely the "recurrence" of a calendar invite (how often the meeting repeats). This information is stored in the event data, hinted to at in Exhibit C (circles with arrows), but not provided.

3. Also as described in that petition and Exhibit B, the Mayor is now using Gov Code 6254(f) to withhold an entire calendar. The Mayor's Office is not a local police agency, and her calendar in entirety is not law enforcment investigation information. This is beyond any reasonable interpretation of the statute.

I will continue to pursue disclosure of all calendar records.of the Mayor, and hope that the Task Force will issue an order under SFAC 67.21(e) that can be enforced at Superior Court under SFAC 67.21(f).


P7166

Filed via MuckRock.com E-mail (Preferred): [email protected] Upload documents directly: https://accounts.muckrock.com/accounts/login/?url_auth_token=AAAxJlxKbHL78P4hPis99lsuolY%3Ali6KXl%3Aqa22Fa SnmaYCYmZsAzMiimowKXY&next=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.muckrock.com%2Faccounts%2Flogin%2F%3Fnext%3D%252Fa ccourits%252Fagency_login%252Foffice-of-the-mayor-3891%252Fmore-calendars-immediate-disclosure-request-79117%252F%253Femail%253Dsotf%252540sfgov.org Is this email coming to the wrong contact? Something else wrong? Use the above link to let us know.



On Sept. 6, 2019: Subject: RE: California Public Records Act Request: More Calendars - Immediate Disclosure Request Supervisor of Records,

Attached is a new petition under SFAC 67.21(d) - ref# 79117. Also attached are 3 exhibits.


On Sept. 5, 2019: Subject: Calendar Request Please see attached, additional responsive to Item 2 of your request regarding Mayor London Breed's calendar for the dates of August 5, 2019 to August 16, 2019. This responsive information has been provided in a PDF format for its ease of transferability and accessibility, consistent with Cal. Gov. Code 6253.9{a)(l). Metadata from any native format has not been provided to avoid risks to the security and integrity of the original record as well as the city's data and information technology systems and to avoid the release of exempt confidential or privileged information. See Cal. Gov. Code 6253.9 (f) and 6254.19. The PDF format ensures the security and integrity of the original record as well as the security and integrity of the city's data and information technology systems.

Please note that information responsive to Item 1 of your request is being withheld pursuant to the security procedures information exemption of Cal. Gov. Code 6254{f). Please also note the following redactions of exempt information and the basis for each withholding:

- August 8th top of page - security procedures information redacted pursuant to Cal. Gov. Code 6254(f).

- August 8th 9AM - call-in information redacted pursuant to the official information privilege. See Cal. Evid. Code Sec. 1040(b)(2).

Pi-67

- August 8th 11AM - personal cell phone numbers redacted to avoid an unwarranted breach of personal privacy pursuant to Cal. Govt. Code Secs. 6254{c), 6254{k); California Constitution, Art. I, Sec. 1.

- August 8th 1:30 PM - security procedures information redacted pursuant to Cal. Gov. Code 6254{f).

- August 8th 2PM - 4PM - personal cell phone numbers redacted to avoid an unwarranted breach of personal privacy pursuant to Cal. Govt. Code Secs. 6254{c), 6254{k); California Constitution, Art. I, Sec. 1.

-August 9th top of page - security procedures information redacted pursuant to Cal. Gov. Code 6254{f).

- August 10th 8:30AM - call-in information redacted pursuant to the official information privilege. See Cal. Evid. Code Sec. 1040{b){2).

- August 10th top of page - security procedures information redacted pursuant to Cal. Gov. Code 6254{f).

- August 10th 11AM - personal cell phone redacted to avoid an unwarranted breach of personal privacy pursuant to Cal. Govt. Code Secs. 6254{c), 6254{k); California Constitution, Art. I, Sec. 1.

- August 11th - security procedures information redacted pursuant to Cal. Gov. Code 6254(f).


- August 12th 9AM - calHn information redacted pursuant to the official information privilege. See Cal. Evid. Code Sec. 1040{b){2).

- August 12th 3PM - SPM - personal cell phones redacted to avoid an unwarranted breach of personal privacy pursuant to Cal. Govt. Code Secs. 6254{c), 6254(k); California Constitution, Art. I, Sec. 1.


- August 13th 9AM - call-in information redacted pursuant to the official information privilege. See Cal. Evid. Code Sec. 1040{b){2).

- August 13th 11:30-5:30 - personal cell phones redacted to avoid an unwarranted breach of personal privacy pursuant to Cal. Govt. Code Secs. 6254(c), 6254{k); California Constitution, Art. I, Sec. 1.


- August 14th 9AM - call-in information redacted pursuant to the official information privilege. See Cal. Evid. Code Sec. 1040{b)(2).

- August 14th 12PM - information redacted to protect the identity of individuals involved in ongoing hiring processes. See Cal. Govt. Code Secs. 6254(c), Admin. Code§ 67.24(c); personal cell phone redacted to avoid an unwarranted breach of personal privacy pursuant to Cal. Govt. Code Secs. 6254(c), 6254(k); California Constitution, Art. I, Sec. 1.

- August 14th 1PM - personal cell phone redacted to avoid an unwarranted breach of personal privacy pursuant to Cal.. Govt. Code Secs. 6254{c), 6254{k); California Constitution, Art. I, Sec. 1.

·_August 14th 1:30PM - information redacted to protect the identity of individuals involved in ongoing hiring processes. See Cal. Govt. Code Secs. 6254(c), Admin. Code§ 67.24{c); personal cell phone redacted to avoid an unwarranted breach of personal privacy pursuant to Cal. Govt. Code Secs. 6254{c), 6254{1<); California Constitution, Art. I, Sec. 1.

Pi68

- August 14th 2PM - 6PM - personal cell phone redacted to avoid an unwarranted breach of personal privacy pursuant to Cal. Govt. Code Secs. 6254(c}, 6254(k); California Constitution, Art. I, Sec. 1.


-August 15th 9AM - call-in information redacted pursuant to the official information privilege. See Cal. Evid. Code Sec. 1040(b}(2}.

-August 15th 10:30AM - 5:30PM - personal cell phone redacted to avoid an unwarranted breach of personal privacy pursuant to Cal. Govt. Code Secs. 6254(c), 6254(k); California Constitution, Art. I, Sec. 1.


- August 16th 9AM - call-in information redacted pursuant to the official information privilege. See Cal. Evid. Code Sec. 1040(b}(2).

- August 16th 11:30AM - 4PM - personal cell phone redacted to avoid an unwarranted breach of personal privacy pursuant to Cal. Govt. Code Secs. 6254(c), 6254(k); California Constitution, Art. I, Sec. 1.

Regards,


September 4, 2019


Thank you - Please provide the date, no later than Sept. 14, of your extension (GC 6253(c)).

https://www.timeanddate~com/date/dateadded.html?m1=8&d1=21&y1=2019&type=add&ay=&am=&aw=&ad=24&rec =

Filed via MuckRock.com E-mail (Preferred): [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Upload documents directly: https://accounts.muckrock.com/accounts/login/?url_auth_token=AAAxJlxKbHL78P4hPis99lsuo1Y%3A1i5Xbz%3A5KDH_ zHRGC97MPUcTiL_QEABPM4&next=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.muckrock.com%2Faccounts%2Flogin%2F%3Fnext%3D%252 Faccounts%252Fagency_login%252Foffice-of-the-mayor-3891%252Fmore-calendars-immediate-disclosure-request-79117%252F%253Femail%253Dmayorsunshinerequests%252540sfgov.org Is this email coming to the wrong contact? Something else wrong? Use the above link to let us know,


PLEASE NOTE.: This request is not filed by a MuckRock staff member, but is being sent through MuckRock by the above in order to better track, share, and manage public records requests. Also note that improperly addressed (i.e., with the

P169

requester's name rather than "MuckRock News" and the department number) requests might be returned as undeliverable.

On Sept. 4, 2019: Subject: Re: California Public Records Act Request: More Calendars - Immediate Disclosure Request Dear Anonymous,

Please note that we are continuing our response to the balance of your request below under an extension pursuant to Government Code§ 6253{c) and San Francisco Adm in. Code§ 67.25(b) because of the need for consultation with other city departments. Regards,

Hank Heckel

On Aug. 26, 2019: Subject: RE: California Public Records Act Request: More Calendars - Immediate Disclosure Request I would also like to remind you both here and in 19047 of the following quote from the Good Govt Guide "But if an official or employee maintains a personal work calendar, it would be considered a public record, with exempt material subject to redaction. " (https://www.sfcityattorney.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Good-Government-Guide-February-2019.pdf pg 121). Non-Prop G calendars are and always have been public records.

On Sept. 4, 2019: Subject: RE: California Public Records Act Request: More Calendars - Immediate Disclosure Request Thank you - Please provide the date, no later than Sept. 14, of your extension (GC 6253(c)).

https://www.timeanddate.com/date/dateadded.html?m1=8&d1=21&y1=2019&type=add&ay=&am=&aw=&ad=24&rec =

On Sept. 4, 2019: Subject: Re: California Public Records Act Request: More Calendars - Immediate Disclosure Request Dear Anonymous,

Please note that we are continuing our response to the balance of your request below under an extension pursuant to Government Code§ 6253(c) and San Francisco Ad min. Code§ 67.25{b) because of the need for consultation with other city departments. Regards,

Hank Heckel

On Aug. 26, 2019: Subject: RE: California Public Records Act Request: More Calendars - Immediate Disclosure Request I would also like to remind you both here and in 19047 of the following quote from the Good Govt Guide "But if an official or employee maintains a personal work calendar, it would be considered a public record, with exempt material subject to redaction. "

Pho

(https://www.sfcityattorney.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Good-Government-Guide-February-2019.pdf pg 121). Non-Prop G calendars are and always have been public records.

On Aug. 21, 2019: Subject: California Public Records Act Request: More Calendars - Immediate Disclosure Request Mayor Breed and Mr. Heckel,

This is a new Immediate Disclosure Request under the San Francisco Sunshine Ordinance, made before start of business August 21, 2019. As you know, the SOTF Complaint Committee unanimously found o'n Aug 20 that the SOTF has jurisdiction, that the requested records are public, and to refer the matter to the SOTF for hearing, in both 19044 Anonymous v. City Attorney and 19047 Anonymous v. Mayor, regarding the refusal of the City Attorney and Mayor, respectively, to provide to me non-PDF electronic formats and metadata/headers for email and calendar information, among other things. I am requesting further calendar information below. It in no way replaces our complaint 19047 which we will continue to pursue.


I request under the San Francisco Sunshine Ordinance (Ordinance) and the California Public Records Act (CPRA):

"1. an electronic copy, (in the original electronic format, or alternatively in a format specified as "A" below, for all items held electronically, and a scanned copy for any physical papers), with all calendar item headers, email addresses, invitations (including but not limited to indications of who sent the invite and when), acceptances/declinations by guests, meta data, timestamps, attachments, appendices, exhibits, and in line images, except those explicitly exempted by the Ordinance, of the Mayor's *prospective/expected* calendar or schedule, with all expected events/items, from August 26 to Sept 3, 2019 (inclusive). We are specifically requesting ALL calendar/scheduling items for the Mayor, whether the Mayor herself possesses them or her staff, whether they are labeled "Prop G" or not, and whether they are on a computer or in physical form (such as a diary, a physical calendar on a wall, etc.). If any of the Mayor's staff uses any invitation/guestlist tracking systems on behalf of the Mayor (such as Outlook's invite mechanism), those calendars are also included within the scope of this request. Furthermore, we request that a City of San Jose v Superior Court (2017) search be performed of the Mayor, her chief of staff (and deputy chiefs), and all personal/secretarial/administrative assistants, such that each such official either provide all records responsive to this request present on their personal accounts/devices/property (solely to the extent the record or portion thereof relates to the public's business), or provide a declaration/affidavit that no such records exist. All such affidavits are also requested.

2. an electronic copy, (in the original electronic format, or alternatively in a format specified as "A" below, for all items held electronically, and a scanned copy for any physical papers), with all calendar item headers, email addresses, invitations (including but not limited to indications of who sent the invite and when), acceptances/declinations by guests, metadata, timestamps, attachments, appendices, exhibits, and in line images, except those explicitly exempted by the Ordinance, of the Mayor's *past* calendar or schedule, with all events/items, from August 5 to August 16, 2019 (inclusive). We are specifically requesting ALL calendar/scheduling items for the Mayor, whether the Mayor herself possesses them or her staff, whether they are labeled "Prop G" or not, and whether they are on a computer or in physical form (such as a diary, a physical calendar on a wall, etc.). If any of the Mayor's staff uses any invitation/guestlist tracking systems on behalf of the Mayor (such as Outlook's invite mechanism), those calendars are also included within . .

· the scope of this request. Furthermore, we request that a City of San Jose v Superior Court (2017) search be performed of the Mayor, her chief of staff (and deputy chiefs), and all personal/secretarial/administrative assistants, such that each such official either provide all records responsive to this request present on their personal accounts/devices/property (solely to the extent the record or portion thereof relates to the public's business), or provide a declaration/affidavit that

p-f71

no such records exist. All such affidavits are also requested. II

We remind you of your obligations to provide electronic records in any format we request them in as long as either you hold them in that format, the format is available to you, or the format is easy to generate (Adm in Code 67.21(1)). Therefore, calendars exported in the .ics, iCalendar, or vCard formats ("A") with all non-exempt headers, meta data, attachments, etc. are our desired formats. Such formats are easily exportable from Google Calendar, Microsoft Outlook, Microsoft Exchange or other common calendaring/email systems. However, if you choose to convert electronic calendar items, for example, to PDF or printed format, to easily redact them, you must ensure that you have preserved the full content of the original calendar item record (as specified in requests 1 and 2), which contains many detailed headers beyond the ones generally printed out. If you provide PDFs or printed items with only a few of the headers or lacking attachments/images, and therefore withhold the other headers/attachments without justification, you may be in violation of SF Admin Code 67.21, 67.26, 67.27, Govt Code 6253(a), 6253.9, and/or 6255, and we may challenge your decision. We *do not* waive the requirement of 67.21(1) discussed above, and are merely instructing you to preserve information even if you provide to us the undesirable PDF format.

For physical calendar items, scanning to PDF format is acceptable.

Note that it is implausible that there would be no prospective scheduling information for upcoming events the Mayor must attend to, even though Prop G requires no such calendar be kept. All calendars you keep re: the public's business are public records.




Filed via MuckRock.com E-mail (Preferred): [email protected] Upload documents directly: https://accounts.muckrock.com/accounts/login/?url_auth_token=AAAxJlxKbHL78P4hPis99lsuolY%3Ali6KXl%3Aqa22Fa SnmaYCYmZsAzMiimowKXY&next=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.muckrock.com%2Faccounts%2Flogin%2F%3Fnext%3D%252Fa ccounts%252Fagency_login%252Foffice-of-the-mayor-3891%252Fmore-calendars-immediate-disclosure-request-79117%252F%253Femail%253Dsotf%252540sfgov.org Is this email coming to the wrong contact? Something else wrong? Use the above link to let us know.


PLEASE NOTE: This request is not filed by a MuckRock staff member, but is being sent through MuckRock by the above in order to better track, share, and manage public records requests. Also note that improperly addressed (Le., with the requester's name rather than "MuckRock News" and the department number) requests might be returned as undeliverable.

Pi72

[email protected] (Anonymous requestor) Please use email only. I am an anonymous user of MuckRock.com, not a MuckRock representative.

Supervisor of Records City Hall, Room 234 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Pl. San Francisco CA 94102 supervisor .records@SFCITYATTY. ORG sent via email to Supervisor of Records

Our ref.

#79117

RE: SF Sunshine Ordinance petition against Mayor, ref req 79117

To the Supervisor of Records of the City and County of San Francisco:

Date

2019-09-06

NOTE: Every response you send or provide (including all responsive records) may be automatically and immediately visible to the general public on the MuckRock.com web service used to issue this request. (I am. not a representative of MuckRock)

This is a new petition under SF Admin Code (SFAC) 67.21(d). As before, while there is some overlap with · prior petitions, this request has certain new issues. You may reference our petitions of May 15 and August 27 regarding calendar formats/metadata and calendar information beyond SFAC 67.29-5, but, where relevant, those requests are explicitly made below in the context of this specific petition.

I have numbered the determinations I request #1 through #8 and they are set off from the text for your convenience. I ask that you carefully consider whether any part of the records so far withheld from us are public.

Please note that, within 10 days, if you determine that any records or parts thereof are public, you have a non-discretionary duty to immediately order their disclosure. 1 I do not wish to negotiate further with the Mayor's Office - please issue all appropriate orders, and provide me a copy along with the determination.

As you may know the Mayor's Office argued at the SOTF Complaint Committee regarding non-Prop G or "unofficial" calendars.

To avoid any of these arguments regarding Proposition G put forth by the Mayor's Office regarding my earlier calendar requests, on August 21, 2019, I requested from the Mayor under the Sunshine Ordinance

1 "Upon the determination by the supervisor of records that the record is public, the supervisor of records shall immediately order the custodian of the public record to comply with the person's request." (SFAC 67.21(d), emphasis mine)

P774


11 1. an electronic copy, (in the original electronic format, or alternatively in a format specified as "A" below, for all items held electronically, and a scanned copy for any physical papers), with all calendar item headers, email addresses, invitations (including but not limited to indications of who sent the invite and when), acceptances/declinations by guests, metadata, timestamps, attachments, appendices, exhibits, and inline images, except those explicitly exempted by the Ordinance, of the Mayor's *prospective/expected* calendar or schedule, with all expected events/items, from August 26 to Sept 3, 2019 (inclusive). We are specifically requesting ALL calendar/scheduling items for the Mayor, whether the Mayor herself possesses them or her staff, whether they are labeled "Prop G" or not, and whether they are on a computer or in physical form (such as a diary, a physical calendar on a wall, etc.). If any of the Mayor's staff uses any invitation/guestlist tracking systems on behalf of the Mayor (such as Outlook's invite mechanism), those calendars are also included within the scope of this request. Furthermore, we request that a City of San Jose v Superior Court (2017) search be performed of the Mayor, her chief of staff (and deputy chiefs), and all personal/secretarial/administrative assistai1ts, such that each such official either provide all records responsive to this request present on their personal accounts/devices/property (solely to the extent the record or portion thereof relates to the public's business), or provide a declaration/affidavit that no such records exist. All such affidavits are also requested.

2. an electronic copy, (in the original electronic format, or alternatively in a format specified as "A" below, for all items held electronically, and a scanned copy for any physical papers), with all calendar item headers, email addresses, invitations (including but not limited to indications of who sent the invite and when), acceptances/declinations by guests, metadata, timestamps, attachments, appendices, exhibits, and inline images, except those explicitly exempted by the Ordinance, of the Mayor's *past* calendar or schedule, with all events/items, from August 5 to August 16, 2019 (inclusive). We are specifically requesting ALL calendar/scheduling items for the Mayor, whether the Mayor herself possesses them or her staff, whether they are labeled 11 Prop G" or not, and whether they are on a computer or in physical form (such as a diary, a physical calendar on a wall, etc.). If any of the Mayor's staff uses any invitation/guestlist tracking systems on behalf of the Mayor (such as Outlook's invite mechanism), those calendars are also included within the scope of this request. Furthermore, we request that a City of San Jose v Superior Court (2017) search be performed of the Mayor, her chief of staff (and deputy chiefs), and all personal/secretarial/administrative assistants, such that each such official either

21 also stated: "We remind you of your obligations to provide electronic records in any format we request them in as long as either

you hold them in that format, the format is available to you, or the format is easy to generate (Admin Code 67.21(1)). Therefore, calendars exported in the .ics, iCalendar, or vCard formats ("A") with all non-exempt headers, metadata, attachments, etc. are our desired formats. Such formats are easily exportable from Google Calendar, Microsoft Outlook, Microsoft Exchange or other common calendaring/email systems. However, if you choose to convert electronic calendar items, for example, to PDF or printed format, to easily redact them, you must ensure that you have preserved the full content of the original calendar item record (as specified in requests 1 and 2), which contains. many detailed headers beyond the ones generally printed out. If you provide PDFs or printed items with only a few of the headers or lacking attachments/images, and therefore withhold the other headers/attachments without justification, you may be in violation of SF Admin Code 67.21, 67.26, 67.27, Govt Code 6253(a), 6253.9, and/or 6255, and we may challenge your decision. We *do not* waive the requirement of 67.21(1) discussed above, and are merely instructing you to preserve information even if you provide to us the undesirable PDF format.

For physical calendar items, scanning to PDF format is acceptable. Note that it is implausible that there would be no prospective scheduling information for upcoming events the Mayor

must attend to, even though Prop G requires no such calendar be kept. All calendars you keep re: the public's business are public records.

Please provide only those copies of records available without any fees. If you determine certain records would require fees, please instead provide the required notice of which of those records are available and non-exempt for inspection in-person if we so choose."

2 of 5

P775

RE: SF Sunshine Ordinance petition against Mayor, ref req 7g117

provide all records responsive to this request present on their personal accounts/ devices/property (solely to the extent the record or portion thereof relates to the public's business), or provide a declaration/affidavit that no such records exist. All such affidavits are also requested. 11

FIRST SUBSTANTIATIVE RESPONSE

On August 22, Mayor's Office released a redacted, image PDF ("Release A") of the Prop G calendar responsive to #2 (Exhibit A attached to the enclosing email), and withholding native formats and metadata pursuant to their interpretation of Govt Code 6253.9(a)(l) and Govt Code 6253.9(f) and 6254.19, respectively. I ask that you:

1. Determine that the native file of the Release A calendar is a public record; and 2. Determine that the metadata in the Release A calendar is a public part of a record;

though I suspect you will re-iterate your office's position in SOTF 19047 (your reply of Aug. 27 to our petition of May 15). I continue to object to those determinations. It is your responsibility to determine if "any part" of the record is public - surely there is some metadata that is non-exempt and public. Some examples will be illustrated below.

SECOND SUBSTANTIATIVE RESPONSE

On September 5, Mayor's Office (see Exhibit B in the enclosing email):

• rejected our request #1, stating:

Please note that information responsive to Item 1 of your request is being withheld pursuant .to the security procedures information exemption of Cal. Gov. Code 6254(f).

• released another redacted, image PDF ("Release B") of the Mayor's Calendar (not the Prop G calendar) responsive to #2 (Exhibit C attached to the enclosing email) ·

• enumerated specific exemptions for certain redactions to the foregoing PDF

Records responsive to request 1 improperly withheld; GC 6254(f) inapposite.

First, the rejection of request #1 is plainly wrong. The entirety of the Mayor's future schedule (future at the time of request, but past at the time of the Sept. 5 response) cannot possibly be confidential law enforcement investigatory records under ·GC 6254(f). Mayor's Office claims that records responsive to request #1 is withheld under a "Sl)CUrity procedures information exemption" of 6254(f). This exemption does not even exist for the Mayor's Office. 3 The Mayor's Office is not "the office-of the Attorney General [or] the Department of Justice, the Office of Emergency Services [or] any state or local police agency" so the first clause re: security procedures does not apply. Furthermore a calendar cannot be "investigatory. or security files compiled by any other state or local agency for correctional, law enforcement, or licensing purposes." This is an extreme and inappropriate stretch of the words of the statute. 6254(f) simply does ·not apply.

3 6254(f) reads in relevant part:

"(f)Records of complaints to, or investigations conducted by, or reco;ds of intelligence information or security procedures of, the office of the Attorney General and the Department of Justice, the Office of Emergency Services and any state or local police agency, or any investigatory or security files compiled by any other state or local police agency, or any investigatory or security files compiled by any other state or local agency for correctional, law enforcement, or licensing purposes."

3 of 5

P776

RE: SF Sunshine Ordinance petition against Mayor, ref req '(g11'l

At the very least (but not only) a calendar showing the times of those supposedly exempt law enforcement investigation meetings (which is a generous interpretation of the Mayor's justification) with the titles, names, and such redacted must be public. Therefore I ask that you:

3 .. Determine that the calendar records requested in item 1 of our August 21 request are public.

Native formats; metadata, in general

Second, we will re-iterate our requests for determination that the Release B should be released in native format and with metadata. ·

4. Determine that the native file of the Release B calendar is a public record; and 5. Determine that the metadata in the Release B calendar is a public part of a record;

Recurrence metadata

In fact, we can plainly see the presence of non-exempt metadata being improperly withheld in this specific Release B. Note the "circle with arrows" icons on pages 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 of Release B. Microsoft Outlook uses such. icons to represent the recurrence or non-recurrence of certain meetings (i.e. how often these meetings happen, once a week, month, etc.). The actual native entries and/or metadata would indicate those recurrence details. No exemption justified the withholding of this part of the record, and Mayor's Office did not justify it in their. list of justifications. Therefore, please:

6. Determine that the event recurrence information in the Release B calendar is a public part of a record.

Inapposite use of GC 6254(f) in Release B

Finally, Mayor's Office has withheld numerous parts of Release B itself under GC 6254(f). Specifically, their justifications list (other exemptions elided):

- August 8th top of page - security procedures information redacted pursuant fo Cal. Gov. Code 6254(f).

- August 8th 1:30 PM - security procedures information redacted pursuant to Cal. Gov. Code 6254(f).

August 9th top of page - security procedures information redacted pursuant to Cal. Gov. Code 6254(f).

- August 10th top of page - security procedures information redacted pursuant to Cal. Gov. Code 6254( f).




4 of 5

P777





·As explained earlier, the Mayor's Office simply does not have the cloak of 6254(f) available to it. The ''.top of page" redactions appears to be labeled "SID" - I am not aware of the meaning of this term. The "August 8th 1:30 PM" redaction again appears not to be a correct 6254(f) withholding - it is a meeting with a city Supervisor. Therefore I ask that you

7. Determine that one or more of the redacte(i, "top of page"/SID data is a public part of a record. and 8. Determine that the redacted August 8th 1:30 PM information is a public part of a record.

I look forward to your response within 10 days.

Sincerely,

Anonymous

5 of 5

P778

~~stS, 2019 I M~1day 11:05 AM - 11:42 AM

11:45 AM - 11:47 AM

12:31 PM • 1:00 PM

1:00 PM • 1:28 PM

1:32 PM· 2:01 PM

2:01 PM • 2:30 PM

2:41 PM - 3:00 PM

3:01 PM • 3:19 PM

4:01 PM • 4:48 PM

PropG, Mayor (MYR)

Older Adult & Adµlts with Disabilities Hiring Fair·· War Memorial Green Room, 401 Van Ness Avenue, San Francis<:o, CA

Q&A with KALW Radio Re: Public Safety -- W;i.r Memorial Green Room, 401 Van Ness Avenue, San Franc;isco, CA

Attendees: Holly McDede, reporter Mayor's Office Staff

Meeting Re: Communications -- City H.,11, Room 200, Mayor's Office

Attendees: · Mayor's Office Staff

Meeting Re: Staffi11g -- City Hall, Room 200, Mayor's Office


Meeting Re: Children, Youth and Their l'amilies -- City Hall, Room 200, Mayor's Offic::e

Attendees: . Maria Su, Executive Director, Department of Children, Youth and

Their Families · Mayor's Office Staff

Meeting Re: Homeless11ess and Supportive Housing -- City H;ill, Room 200, Mayor's Office

Attendees: Jeff Kositsky, Director, Department of Homelessness and

Supportive Housing Mayor's Office Staff

Meeti11g Re: Government Affairs -- City Hall, Room 200, Mayor's Office


Meeting Re: Housing and Community Development -- City Hall, Room 200, Mayor's Office

Attendees: Dan Adams, Deputy Director, Mayor's Office of Housing and

Community Development Theo Miller, Director HOPE SF Tonia Lediju, Transition Team Leader, San Francisco Housing

Authority Mayor's Office Staff

Opportunities for All Internship Visit ·- Airbnb Headquarters, 888 Brannan Street, San fra11dsco, CA

8/22/2019 2:45 PM

P779

I Augus: 6, 2019 Tuesda

9:00 AM • 9:15 AM

ll:30 AM • 12:10 PM

2:03 PM • 2:33 PM

2:43 PM • 2:57 PM

3:03 PM - 3:29 PM

3:33 PM • 3:45 PM

4:33 PM • 4:55 PM

5:00 PM - 5:20 PM

5:45 PM· 6:05 PM

6:20 PM - 6:45 PM

6:50 PM - 7:45 PM

August 7, :Z()lf) Wednesda

9:00 AM • 9:18 AM

PropG, Mi'lyor (MYR)

Meeting R!!; Staff Check In •• Remote Conference Calt


Muni Chase Center Ribbon Cutting Ceremony

Meeting Re: Protocol •• City Hall, Room 200, Mayor's Office


2021 Bay Area Gay Softball World Series Video .. City Hall, International Room

Attendees: Mayor's Office Staff Cameraman

Meeting Re: Public Safety •• City Hall, Room 200, Mayor's Office

Attendees: Vicki Hennessy, Sheriff, San Francisco Sheriff's Department Mayor's Office Staff

San Francisco Mayor's Soccer Cup Video Clip .. City Hall, International Room

Attendees: Mayor's Office Staff San Francisco Glens Evolution Youth Soccer Players and Staff

Hunters Point Family Back to School Event -- South Community Facility, 1800 Oakdale Avenue, San Frandsco, CA

Bayview Station, National Night Out -- Bayview Opera House, 4705 3rd Street, San fnincisco, CA

Central Station; National Night Out -- Salesian Boys' & Girls' Club; 680 Filbert Street, San Francisco, CA

Park Station, National Night Out·· Harvey Milk Center Duboce .Park; 50 Scott Street, San Frands.;;o, CA

Northern Station, National Night Out ·-Ella Hill Hutch Center; 1050 McAllister Street, San Francisco CA

Meeting Re: Staff Check ln •• Remote Conference Call


2

P780

8/'22/2019 2:45 PM

August 7, 2019 Continued Wednesday

11:30 AM • 12;00 PM

12:30 PM - 12:45 PM

2:34 PM - 2:56 PM

2:57 PM - 3:33 PM

3:33 PM - 3:54 PM

4:55 PM - 5:20 PM

5:30 PM - 6:15 PM

I August 8, 2019 Thursday

9:02 AM - 9:14 AM

11:09 AM - 11:27 AM

1:30 PM· 1:50 PM

2:10 PM - 3:17 PM

3:39 PM· 3:55 PM

PropG, Mayor (MYR)

Life Learning Ac;ademy Dormitory Opening -- Life Learning Academy; 651 8th Street, Treasure Island; San Francisco, CA

The Salvation Army's 15th Annual Flower Power Luncheon -- Fairmont Hotel, 950 Mason Street, San Frandsco, CA

Swearing in Ceremony for John C'3ldon -- City Hall, International Room

Meeting Re: Homeles~ness -- City Hall, Room 200, Mayor's Office

Attendees: Lou Giraudo, RSVP Project Sponsor, Co-Founder and Senior

Managing Partner, GESD Capital Partners Mayor's Office Staff

Meeting Re: Public Safety•• City Hall, Room 200, Mayor's Offke

Attendees: • Chief William Scott, Chief of Police, San Francisco Police Department • Mayor's Office Staff

2019 Backpack Giveaway -· 222 Taylor Street, San Francisco, CA

2019 Backpack Giveaway -- 1036 Mission Street, San Francisco, CA

Meeting Re: Staff Check In •• Remote Conference Call


Sf PD Traffic Company and Forensic Services Division Facility Groundbreaking Ceremony -- 199S Evans Avenue, San Francisco, CA

Meeting with Supervisor Sandra Fewer Re: District 1 ·-City Hall, Room 200, Mayor's Office

Attendees: Supervisor Sandra Fewer Mayor's Office Staff

Outside Lands Press Conference -- Polo Field (north side), Golden Gate Park, San Francisco, CA

Latchkey Afterschool Program Field Trip -- City Hall, Room 200, International Room

3 8/22/2019 2:45 PM

P781

I Augusts, 2019 Continued . . Thursday

3:55 PM - 4:05 PM

4:05 PM • 4;35 PM

4:48 PM - 4:59 PM

6:13 PM • 7:45 PM

I August 9, 2019

. Friday ·

8:3Z AM - 9:00 AM

I August 10, 2019 Saturday

11:00 AM • 12:02 PM

I August 12, 2019 Monday

9:00 AM • 9:17 AM

2:36 PM - 2:52 j)M

3:02 PM • 3:3~ PM

PropG, M;:iyor (MYR)

Meeting with Supervisor Vallie Brown Re: District 5 -- City Hall. Room 200, Mayor's Office

Attendees: SupervisorVallie Brown Mayor's Office Staff

Meeting Re: Transportation •• City Hall; Room 200, Mayor's Office

Attendees: Amanda Eaken - Member, SFMTA Board of Directors Gwyneth Borden, Vice Chair, SFMTA Board of Directors Mayor's Office Staff

Meeting Re: Legislation Signing -- City Hall, Room 200, Mayor's Office·


UC Davis Reception; Aggies in the City -- City Hall, South Ught Court

Meeting Re: Staff Check In .; Remote Conference Call


26th Annual Pistahan Parade c- Corner of l.arkin and Fulton Streets, in between the Asian Art Museum and Public; Library, S;in Francisco, CA



Meeting Re: Government Affairs·· City Hall, Room 200, Mayor's Office


Meeting Re: Human Resources -- City Hall, Room 200, Mayor's Office

Attendees: Micki Callahan, Director, Department of Human Resources Carol lsen, Employee Relations Director Mayor's Office Staff

4 8/22/2019 2:45 PM

P782

[August 12, 2019 Continued ; Monda ·

3:33 PM • 4:00 PM

4:01 PM· 4:17 PM

4:36 PM· 4:55 PM

5:04 PM • 5:28 PM

\'.August 13, 2019 Juesday

9:02 AM - 9:13 AM

11:30AM·12:00 PM

12:20 PM • 1:00 PM

l;03 PM - 1:38 PM

1:44 PM • 2:1.S PM

PropG, Mayor (MYR)

Meeting Re: Personnel·· City Hall, Room 200, Mayor's Office Attendees: ·

Interviewee Mayor's Office Staff

Meeting Re: Economic and Workforce Development·· City Hall, Room 200, Mayor's Office

Attendees: · Joaquin Torres, Director, Office of Economic and Workforce

Development, City and County of San Francisco Mayor's Office Staff

Meeting Re: Street Conditions ·-City Hall, Room 200, Mayor's Office

Attendees: Chief William Scott, Chief of Police, San Francisco Police

Department Dr. Grant Colfax, Director, Department of Public Health Mohammed Nuru, Director, Department of Public Works Mary Ellen Carroll, Department of Emergency Management

Veteran's Affairs Swearing-In Ceremony -- City Hall, Mayor's Balcony

Meeting Re: Staff Check ln •• Remote Conference Call


Exptoratorium Middle Ground Opening Event •• San Francisco Main Library, San Francisco, CA

Bristol Hotel Move-in -- Bristol Hotel, 56 Mason Street, San Francisco, CA

Meeting 11.e: Police Offi<::ers Association -- City Hall, Room 200, Mayor's Office

Attendees: Tony Montoya, President, San Francisco Police Officers

Association Mayor's Office Staff

Meeting Re: Hall of Justke Closure·· City Hall, Room 200, Mayor's Office

Attendees: Naomi Kelly, City Administrator, City and County of San Francisco Vicki Hennessy, Sheriff, San Francisco Mayor's Office Staff

5 8/22/2019 2:45 PM

P783

I Augus:l3, 20l9 Continued Tuesda

2:13 PM • 2:24 PM

5;30 PM - 6:25 PM

I August 14, 2019 Wednesday

9:01 AM • 9:17 AM

12:13 PM - 12:42 PM

12:43 PM • 12:57 PM

1:02 PM • 1:15 PM

1:34 PM • 1:47 PM

2:05 PM - 2:29 PM

2:30 PM • 3:07 PM

3:09 PM - 3:32 PM

Meeting Re: Budget -- City Hall, Room zoo, Mayor's Office


Perry's 50th Anniversary -- Perry's on Union, 1944 Union Street, San ~rancisco, CA

Meeting Re: Staff Check In -- Remote Conference Call.


Meeting Re: Personnel -- City Hall, Room 200, Mayor's Office

Attendees:

• Interviewee

• Mayor's Office Staff

Meeting with Jenny Lam Re: Education -- City Hall, Room 200, Mayor's Office


Meeting Re: Public Safety -- City Hall, Room 200, Mayor's Office

Attendees: Chief Jeanine Nicholson, San Fra·ncisco Fire Department Mayor's Office Staff

Meeting Re: Personnel -- City Hall, Room 200, Mayor's Offi<:e Attendees:

Interviewee Mayor's Office Staff

Meeting Re: Human Rights Commission •• City Hall, Room 200, Mayor's Office

Attendees: Sheryl Davis, Executive Director, Human Rights Commission Mayor's Office Staff

Meeting with Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas Re: Homelessness"" City Hall, Room 200 Mayor's Office Attendees:

• Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas, Los Angeles County, Second District

Meeting Re: Transportation -- City Hall, Room 200, Mayor's Office

Attendees: Toni Maguire, Interim Director, San Francisco Municipal

Transportation Agency Mayo(s Office Staff

1

I

PropG, Mayor (MYR) 6 8/22/2019 2:45 Pl·1

P784

I August 14, 2019 Continued Wednesday

3:32 PM - 3:56 PM

4:00 PM - 4:28 PM

4:37 PM - S:OB PM

5:13 PM • 5:35 PM

6:10 PM • 6:35 PM

I August 15, 2019 Thursday

9:03 AM • 9:27 AM

10:35 AM • 11:20 AM

11:45 AM - 12:20 PM

12:51 PM - 1:45 PM

PropG, Mayor (MYR)

Meeting with City Attorney Dennis Herrera Re: Legal and City ls.s\Jes -- City Hall, Room 200, Mayor's Office

Attendees: Dennis Herrera, City Attorney

Meeting with Superintendent Matthews Re: San Ftandsco Unified School District -- City Hall, Room WO, Mayor's Office

Attendees: Vincent Matthews, Superintendent, San Francisco Unified School

District Mayor's Office Staff

Meeting Re: PG&E -. City Hall, Room 200, Mayor's Office

Attendees: John Mader, President, ESC Local 20 Karen Sawislak, Executive Director, ESC Local 20 Joshua Sperry, Senior Union Representative of PG&E, ESC Local

20 Jonathan Wright, Organizer and Political Coordinator, ESC Local 20 Harlan Kelly, General Manager, San Francisco Public Utilities·

Commission Mayor's Office Staff

Meeting Re: Public Safety·· City Hall, Room 200 Mayor's Office

Attendees: • William Scott, Chief of Police, San Francisco Police Department " Mayor's Office Staff

2019 A. Philip Randolph Xnstitute Resilient Youth Leadership Academy Graduation·· So\Jtheast Community Facility! 1800 Oakdale Ave, San Francisco, CA



Middle-lr1come Housing Round Table with Governor Newsom - Francis Scott Key Elementary School; 1530 43rd Avenue, San Francisco, CA

Bayview Bistro Celebration -- 4101 Third Street, San Francisco, CA

HOPE SF Sunnyd11le Backpack Giveaway -- 1652-1654 Sunnydale Ave., Sunttydale Youth Center arid Community Room, San Francisco, CA

7 8/22/2019 2:45 PM

P785

I August 15, 2019 Continued Thursday

2:15 PM - ;>.:40 PM

3:15 PM - 3:28 PM

3:38 PM· 4:11 PM

5:30 PM· 5:50 PM

I August 16, 2019 Friday

9:00 AM - 9:18 AM

11:15 AM - 11:45 AM

12:55 PM - 1:35 PM

2:56 PM • 3:10 PM

3:11 PM - 3:35 PM

3:41 PM - 3;S7 PM

PropG, Mayor (MYR)

20;19 llackpack Giveaway: Pink Yuen/Chinatown Community -- 711 Pacific Ave, San Francisco, CA 94133

Video Recording: Mission Neighborhood Centers' 60th Anniversary -- City Hall, Room 200, Mayor's Office

Attendees: Mayor's Office Staff Cameraman

Chinese Consolidated Benevolent Assoclation Meeting •• City Hall, Room 200, International Room

Downtown Streets Team Reception -- Twitter HQ, 1355 Sutter Street, San Francisco, CA

Meeting Re: Staff Check Tn ··Remote Conference Call


Back-to-School Pedestrian and Traffic Safety Press Conference ··Marina Middle School, 3500 Fillmore· Street, San Frnndsco, CA

EMILY'S List Annual Ignite Change San Francisco Luncheon ··Fairmont San Frandsco, 950 Mason Street, San Francisco, CA

Meeting Re: Commissiorts •• City Hall, Room 200, Mayor's Office


Meeting Re: PG&E -· City Hall, Room ;>.OO, Mayor's Offii:e

Attendees: Tom Dalzell, Business Manager, IBEW Local 1245 Hunter Stern, Assistant Business Manager, IBEW Local 1245 Bob Dean, Senior Assistant Business Manager, IBEW Local 1245 Harlan Kelly, General Manager, San Francisco Public Utilities

Commission Mayor's Office Staff

Meeting Re: Commissions -- City Hall, Room 200, Mayor's Office


.8 8/22/2019 2:45 PM

P786

. ·I August 16, 2019 Continued

_Erl~----------------------------------~ 3:57 PM - 4:49 PM Meeting Re: Government Affairs and City Operations -- City Hall, Room 200, Mayor's Office


5;11 PM - 6:00 PM District 5 Public Safety Walk -- Fillmore Street, San Francisco, CA

PropG, Mayor (MYR) 9 8/22/2019 2:45 PM

P787

Please see attached, additional responsive to Item 2 of your request regarding Mayor London Breed's calendar for the dates of August 5, 2019 to August 16, 2019. This responsive information has been provided in a PDF format for its ease of transferability and accessibility, consistent with Cal. Gov. Code 6253.9(a)(1). Metadata from any native format has not been provided to avoid risks to the security and integrity of the original record as well as the city's data and information technology systems and to avoid the release of exempt confidential or privileged information. See Cal. Gov. Code 6253.9 (f) and 6254.19. The PDF format ensures the security and integrity of the original record as well as the security and integrity of the city's data and information technology systems.

Please note that information responsive to Item 1 of your request is being withheld pursuant to the ·security procedures information exemption of Cal. Gov. Code 6254(f). Please also note the following redactions of exempt information and the basis for each withholding:



· - August 8th 11AM - personal cell phone numbers redacted to avoid an unwarranted breach of personal privacy pursuant to Cal. Govt. Code Secs. 6254(c), 6254(k); California Constitution, Art. I, Sec.1.

- August 8th 1 :30 PM - security procedures information redacted pursuant to Cal. Gov. Code 6254(f).

- August 8th 2PM - 4PM - personal cell phone numbers redacted to avoid an unwarranted breach of personal privacy pursuant to Cal. Govt. Code Secs. 6254(c), 6254(k); California Constitution, Art. I, Sec. 1.


- August 10th 8:30AM - call-in information redacted pursuant to the official information privilege. · See Cal. Evid. Code Sec. 1040(b)(2).


- August 10th 11AM - personal cell phone redacted to avoid an unwarranted breach of personal privacy pursuant to Cal. Govt. Code Secs. 6254(c), 6254(k); California Constitution, Art. I, Sec. 1.


- August 12th top of page - security procedures information redacted pursuant to Cal. .Gov. Code 6254(f).

P788


- August 12th 3PM - 5PM - personal cell phones redacted to avoid an unwarranted breach of personal privacy pursuant to Cal. Govt. Code Secs. 6254(c), 6254(k); California Constitution, Art. I, Sec. 1. ·



- August 13th 11:30-5:30 - personal cell phones redacted to avoid an unwarranted breach of personal privacy pursuant to Cal. Govt. Code Secs. 6254(c), 6254(k); California Constitution, Art. I, Sec. 1.


- August 14th 9AM - call-in information redacted pursuant to the official information privilege. See Cal. Evid. Code Sec. 1040(b) (2).

- August 14th 12PM - information redacted to protect the identity of individuals involved in ongoing hiring processes. See Cal. Govt. Code Secs. 6254(c), Admin. Code§ 67.24(c); personal cell phone redacted to avoid an unwarranted breach of personal privacy pursuant to Cal. Govt. Code Secs. 6254(c), 6254(k); California Constitution, Art. I, Sec. 1.

- August 14th 1PM - personal cell phone redacted to avoid an unwarranted breach of personal privacy pursuant to Cal. Govt. Code Secs. 6254(c), 6254(k); California Constitution, Art. I, Sec. 1.

- August 14th 1:30PM - information redacted to protect the identity of individuals involved in ongoing hiring processes. See Cal. Govt. Code Secs. 6254(c), Admin. Code§ 67.24(c); personal cell phone redacted to avoid an unwarranted breach of personal privacy pursuant to Cal. Govt. Code Secs. 6254(c), 6254(k); California Constitution, Art. I, Sec. 1.

- August 14th 2PM - 6PM - personal cell phone redacted to avoid an unwarranted breach of personal privacy pursuant to Cal. Govt. Code Secs. 6254(c), 6254(k); California Constitution, Art. I, Sec.1.


- August 15th 9AM - call-in information redacted pursuant to the official information privilege. ·See Cal. Evid. Code Sec. 1040(b)(2) .

...: August 15th 10:30AM - 5:30PM - personal cell phone redacted to avoi.d an unwarranted breach of personal privacy pursuant to Cal. Govt. Code Secs. 6254(c), 6254(k); California Constitution, Art. I, Sec. 1.


P789

- August 16th 9AM - call-in information redacted pursuant to the official information privilege. See Cal. Evid. Code Sec. 1040(b) (2). ·

- August 16th 11:30AM - 4PM - personal cell phone redacted to avoid an unwarranted breach of personal privacy pursuant to Cal. Govt. Code Secs. 6254(c), 6254(k); California Constitution, Art. I, Sec.1.

Regards,.


P790

August 8, 2019 Thursday

THURSDAY

8

7

8

9 Senior Staff Check In

10

11 .:: SFPD Traffic Company •nd forensic Services Division Facility Groundbrealdng Ceremony (Staff:

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Sandra fewer,

Outsid~ Lands Press Confetence (Staff:

Lotchkoy Program Field Trlp (Staff: Jenny lam City liali, International Room

__ :_·_·· __ :..........::. __ _:.. _______ ..

·--------·········· ·----------····----

UC Davls Reception; Aggies ln th• City (Staff. City Hall. South Light Court

Calendar, Mayor (MYR) 1

P791

August 2019

SuMo TuWe Th Fr Sa

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27.28 29 30 31

·-. - ···--. ~ -····--·. Polo field (nonh side). Gold•n (;,te Park

---------·-·-···'"""""" City Hali, Roorn 200. MO

A<!iley Murray

September 2019

SuMo TuWe Th Fr Sa

1234567 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

19'35 fyans Avenue

.. ~)

·------ -------~-----

··--------·~· ------

8/27/2019 2:04 PM

August 9, 2019 August 2019 SuMci TuWe Th Fr Sa

1 2 3 Friday

FRIDAY

9

7 !--------·------

8 S<nior St.off Che<:k In Call

9

10

11

1.

2

4 s 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26'27 28 29 30 31

. ----------·--·-··----··"'" - -·-·-·-·-.. ---------------------

September 2019 S.uMo TuWe Th Fr Sa

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

15 16 't7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 '28 29 30

·--.... ---·-··-----~--

3

·--------·---.......... _. ..----·------·----4

-· .. ·-----·--·---- -----------···-··-· ..

5

··-·-------------·-·-------6

-···--~·~- -~-~--- ·--------------

7

8 ·--------------·--··----·-·-·---·---------!

---,-------------------------· ___ .... __ , ___ ,. __ . __ . ··----·-··--··--------

Calendar, Mayor (MYR) 2 8/27/2019 2:04 PM

P792

August 10, 2019 Saturday

SATURDAY

10

. 6/\M

7

8

!-------------·---·-9

- ··-·--·-------------·-------

10

1

2

!---'------------··----·--·--·-------3

--- ·----· ·---4

August 2019

SuMo TuWe Th Fr Sa

1 2 3 45678910

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 i9 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31

September 2019

SuMo TuWe Th Fr Sa

1234567 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

·-··----------------

---·---·---------------

·------------------·----- ··-----··-- .. ·--·-·--·---·---------------------"---··- -----~-·----

!--------------------·-····-·------ ·-----c---------------·--------5

·-------------------- --·--·--------------!

6 -· -·---·-·---·---·-------·---··----·-··-·-··---··------

7 1----------------------------·---------·----------'--------l

---------- ··-·---·---·------------! 8


P793

August 11, 2019 August 2019

SuMo TUWe Th Fr Sa 1 2 3

September 2.019

SuMo TuWe Th Fr Sa

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

Sunday 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22·23 24 2s 26 21·2a 29 30 31

SUNDAY

11

·----··------- -- --··-·~---·----· ·----··-·---··•·o-·- ···--···· ·--------

,. -·-·------·--·----------- ··-·····-·-·-·----! 7

·-----~-"·---------------- ···-····--····--·--------- ---- .. ----···~---·

... ---· ·-··-·-·---·-·- ---------- ------ ·-· ·············--····-·--·· 8

!------·------.. ·--·----9

.. ------- -·----- -··-··-· -· ·- ·- ·-----·-·-~---------·---

10

11 -----------·--·-·--···--------!

---· ·-··-----·------- ·-···. 12 PM

-----------·-·------1

-------~-· ---------< 2

1---~--------------------·--------------------l 3

4 .. ._._,, _______ , ·-'---------·--------------------···-·-·-----·----------!

5 !--'----------------------····· . --- ··-----·- ···--··-···-··--····-·········-··-···-·························-···-················ ........ ············-···-··.

6

7 !------------------------------------------! !--------------------·--·--····-·-·----------------

8 ------------------··--···-·····


P794

August 1 I 2019 Monday·

MOt..JDAY

12

7

8

9 Stniot Staff Check in Coll

10

11

2 ··-«-·•-··· .. _... . ..

Government Affairs M••ting ; City Hall, Room 200, MO

3

4 Street Conditions Meeting; City rlall, Room 200, MO

5

6

7 ·------------·-

8

August 2019

SuMo TuWe Th Fr Sa

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20.21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31

City Hall, Mayor's Balcony ... . ........ ._,.

September 2019

SuMo TuWe Th Fr Sa

1234567 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

·--~-----~~.

---------- -~·----~-----

--------------~··-·-------------·


P795

August 13, 2019 Tuesday

lUESDAY

13

----- ·--·------------··--···"--·-··--------------7

8

9 : Senior Staff Check in Call;

10

Augu~t 2019

SuMo TuWe Th Fr Sa

1 2 3 45678910

11 12 13 14 15 16 17' 18 19 20 21 22·23 24 .25 26 27 28 29 30 31

Sep1ember 2019

SuM.o TuWe Th Fr Sa

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 .14

15 16·17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 ·27 18 29 30

·--· ··-·--··---------·-·----~--····---·-------!

---------· ---~----------1

·------··--·-··-·- ·--------------··--· ··-····-----------

- - . ·-·--·-·--· -----

11 Exploratorium Middle Ground Opening Event (Staff: Joaquin Torm••••· Amy Co~,~~l••••lsan Francisco Main Libraiy, IJirkin Slr••l Side

··- - -·-···-· ' -----

Bristol Hotel Move.-Jn (Staff: Jeff Cntan Brislol Hotel, 56 Mamn Street (J'

1 Tony Montoya re: POA (Staff: Marjan

2 K•lly Klrkpotrick ro: Budgot (Stoffi Andr<o

···-·- ···-·----·---··-----------····-· 3

4

·---- .-------·-···------ - ,. ..... ________ .

5 : Peny's on Union, 1944 Union Street

6

7

--- ----·-·---·-- ·-----------------8

--------·-----------------

"·- ________ ._ __ _


P796

August 14, 2019 Wednesday

WEDNESDAY

14

August 2019

SuMo TuWe Th Fr Sa

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31

.. ···-··----·------------

---- -------·-------. --·-·------·-·---------------·------····

7

8

9 Seniot Stall Check In Call;

10

11

1

2 ; City Hall, Room 200, MO

3 Tom Maguire (Staff: Paul Supawanich

Dttnni:s Herrera, City Attorney ; City Hall, Room 2.00 Mayon Office

4

5

6 (Stafu D•' Anthony

7

8 --------------------

... ··----··---·-· ------·-----------

calendar, Mayor (MYR) 7

P797

September 2019

SuMo TuWe Th Fr Sa

1234567 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

8/27/2019 2:04 PM

August 15, 2019 Thursday

THURSDAY

15

7

8

9 Senior Staff Check In C.!I;

___ ,,_·--------------

August 2019

SuMo TuWe Th Fr Sa

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23'24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31

September 2019

SuMo TuWe Th Fr Sa

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

'-'---"""-""------'--------- --- .. cc_:_c _______ .. _,_c:_ _______ ..

10

11

2

3

4

5

Middle-ln<omt Housing Round Table with Govemor Newsom (Staff: Jeff Cretan Francis Scott Kf!'/ Elementary School, Room 201(153043rd Ave, 4lrd Ave at Kirkham

- Bayvl~w Bistro Cel•bration (Staff: Joaquin i\ 101 Third S:tre~t. bEtwe-en Hu.di::on ~nd lnnct Ave.

Jeff Cretan; En Roule

. HOPE SF Sunnydalt Backpack Giveaway (Staff: Sandra

2019 Backpock GivenWll~: Ping Yuen/Chinatown Cpmmunlty Development Cente-t (CCOC) (Staff: Kelvln Wu

•. ·:::.. .. : .• .::.. ,,7,;·:::; .• : ... _, .. -, .. ;:.: .:.--~·-·'" ·~' • ~ ......

Chfnele Consolidated aenE:'Yolent Association Meetlng 1~um:Jo•1qu.1n

--------- ·-·-- ·-·---

-----··----·-.·

1652-1654 Sunnyda!e Ave., Sunnydale Vout

Pe' Anthony Jones

Hot!, lnternauon•I Room

Downtown Street< Team Recoptlon (Staff: Emma Heiken : Twitter HQ; 1355 Market$\.

6

7

8

I ·--T I

calendar, Mayor (MYR)

--------------;

.. ------ ·-· ·- ______ ,, ______ -·----·----

8 8/27/2019 2:04 PM

P798

August 16, 2019 Friday

FRIDAY

7

8

9 Senior Staff Check in ca Iii

10

11

12 PM

Jeff

August 2019

SuMo TuWe Th Fr Sa

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28. 29 30 31

September 2019

SuMb TuWe Th Fr Sa 1 34567 8 9 10 11 12·13 14

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 .

··---···--··--·-··--- ·.-----··----···--···----·

fv',arini1 Middle Schcol, 3500 Fillmore Stree1 1 on fronl steps

EMILY'• li>t Annual Ignite Change San Francisto LUnchoon (Staff: Nicole Lindler hley Murray ; Fairmo!"lt San Fra.~dsco, 950 Ma.son Street - lobby Lw

2

3 .'.•.M=~9·.~·~~~~f ~~fJ~;~,:.t5:,~~:~ft~,~~;±J1!~fl

4

5

6

7

8

Sean and Andrt?a: Cit>• Hall Room 200. MO

. Karihhkn Cheng re-; Commissions {Staff: Sean Elsbernd,

05 PublicSafety Walk (Staff: De' Anthony Jones:) Fillmore

------·------

--. _\ __ _

~----· ··----·· Calendar, Mayor (MYR)

City Hall, Room 200, MO

----·--------··---··

·---·--·------

9 8/27/2019 2:04 PM

P799

From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments:

I (BOS)

[email protected] Saturday; September 7, 2019 12:10 AM SOTF, (BOS) RE: California Public Records Act Request #19047 SUPP LEM ENT AL20 RECO RD20-20 Res ponsive_I nformation_2_Re_ Calendar _Ap ri 1_28 _to.,..May_ 4-compressed_p9Q2tQl.pdf; PETITION20RESPONSE20-202019-09-06 _Ltr_to_Muckrock_Me6JkD2.pdf; SUPPLEMENTAL20RESPONSE20-20April2028-May2042C20201920Calendar20-201mmediate20Disclosu_PCLH7YQ.pdf


September 7, 2019


*** FILE 19047 ***

Dear SOTF,

[I earlier today sent you a follow-up to 19047.re: my more in-depth requests for calendars. This is yet another follow-up for the 19047 case using a different mechanism of enforcing compliance by the City. Please add both to the file.]

Hank Heckel stated .at the Aug. 20 committee (lh 17min in audio): "Anonymous's complaint is focused on information which either (a) was provided, (b) does not exist, or (c) compromises non-substantiative metadata ... 11

• This appears to be false, evidenced by the 2nd, non-Prop G calendar attached, recently disclosed by Respondents (titled by me SUPPLEMENTAL RECORD). Note that this non-Prop G calendar does, in fact, identify (among other things) individual staff where the original disclosed record (the public-facing Prop G calendar) failed to do so.

Since your Aug. 20 committee determination, I have been pressing many parallel tracks to get all the calendar documents or force the Respondents to properly justify all their withholding. One of those methods is a second (and then third) SFAC 67.21(d) petition to the Supervisor of Records to determine that non-Prop G calendar records are also public. On the due date of my petition, the Mayor's Office provided a non-Prop G calendar and the Sup. of Records also replied to us nearly simultaneously, without formally denying or granting my petition. This appears to be a maneuver of internal negotiation between the Sup. of Records and the Respondents (Mayor's Office) allowing the Supervisor of Records to not have to make an on-the-record determination that such calendars are public. I have attached the supplemental record, Respondents' supplemental response, and the petition response.

There is no mootness rule in the Sunshine Ordinance for either your Task Force or the Supervisor of Records - the fact thatthe Respondents previously withheld this information, in contravention of the Sunshine Ordinance/CPRA, triggering my petitions and complaints, means I am due such an Order of Determination and still want you to find that the Respondents violated the ordinance. I will continue to pursue that Order from your Task Force and the Supervisor of Records - I want these orders on the record, and available for me to enforce at Superior Court under 67.21(f) and 67.35, if need be.

Note also that all my metadata/format objections in 19047 are still unresolved as well.

Pa1oO

Sincerely,

Anonymous

Filed via MuckRock.com E-mail (Preferred): [email protected] Upload documents directly: https://accounts.muckrock.com/accounts/login/?next=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.muckrock.com%2Faccounts%2Flogin%2F %3Fnext%3D%252Faccounts%252Fagency_login%252Foffice-of-the-mayor-3891%252Fapril-28-may-4-2019-calendarimmediate-disclosure-request-72902%252F%253Femail%253Dsotf%252540sfgov.org&url_auth_token=AAAxJlxKbHL78P4hPis99lsuo1Y%3Ali6UnA%3AI Flhvv_WOaE6rAxTGQSu8zBHEQM Is this email coming to the wrong contact? Something else wrong? Use the above link to let us know.


PLEASE NOTE: This request is not filed by a MuckRock staff member, but is being sent through MuckRock by the above in order to better track, share, and manage publicrecords requests. Also note that improperly addressed (i.e., with the requester's name rather than "MuckRock News" and the department number) requests might be returned as undeliverable.

On Sept. 7, 2019: Subject: RE: California Public Records Act Request #19047 ***FILE 19047 ***

Dear SOTF,

[I earlier today sent you a follow-up to 19047 re: my more in-depth requests for calendars. This is yet another follow-up for the 19047 case using a different mechanism of enforcing compliance by the City. Please add both to the file.]

Hank Heckel stated at the Aug. 20 committee (lh 17min in audio): "Anonymous's complaint is focused on information which either (a) was provided, (b) does not exist, or (c) compromises non-substantiative metadata ... ". This appears to be false, evidenced by the 2nd, non-Prop G calendar attached, recently disclosed by Respondents (titled by me SUPPLEMENTAL RECORD). Note that this non-Prop G calendar does, in fact, identify (among other things) individual staff where the original disclosed record (the public-facing Prop G calendar) failed to do so.

Since your Aug. 20 committee determination, I have been pressing many parallel tracks to get all the calendar documents or force the Respondents to properly justify all their withholding. One of those methods is a second (and then third) SFAC 67.21(d) petition to the Supervisor of Records to determine that non-Prop G calendar records are also public. On the due date of my petition, the Mayor's Office provided a non-Prop G calendar and the Sup. of Records also replied to us nearly simultaneously, without formally denying or granting my petition. This appears to be a maneuver of internal negotiation between the Sup. of Records and the Respondents (Mayor's Office) allowing the Supervisor of Records to not have to make an on-the-record determination that such calendars are public. I have attached the supplemental record, Respondents' supplemental response, and the petition response.

p§o1

There is no mootness rule in the Sunshine Ordinance for either your Task Force or the Supervisor of Records - the fact that the Respondents previously withheld this information, in contravention of the Sunshine Ordinance/CPRA, triggering my petitions and complaints, means I am due.such an Order of Determination and still want you to find that the Respondents violated the ordinance. I will continue to pursue that Order from your Task Force and the Supervisor of Records - I want these orders on the record, and available for me to enforce at Superior Court under 67.21(f) and 67.35, if need be.

Note also that all my metadata/format objections in 19047 are still unresolved as well.

Sincerely,

Anonymous

On Sept. 6, 2019: Subject: RE: California Public Records Act Request #19047 Also, I missed this in the last email: while I understand the Mayor's Office turned over this non-Prop G calendar eventually, I think I am still owed a determination from the Supervisor of Records on my Aug 27 petition. You did not make that determination, and that is quite important to ensuring agencies cannot run rough-shod over our transparency laws.

Please issue me the obvious determination that these non-Prop G calendars now disclosed were and are in fact public records. This should be a very simple legal determination - there was a calendar prepared, owned, used, or retained by the Office of Mayor, and so it was plainly a public record, regardless of the Sunshine Ordinance or the Good Government Guide (which has no legal authority). This is not a new petition - it was made on Aug. 27.


On Sept. 6, 2019: Subject: RE: California Public Records Act Request #19047

·Thank you very much for your response.

The Office of the Mayor in their supplemental response states"- Redactions at the top of each page - security procedures information related to security detail redacted pursuant to Cal. Gov. Code 6254(f)." 6254(f) is not a permitted exemption reason for the reasons specified fully on the last para on page 3 and on the fUll page 5 of the following petition regarding other calendars: https://cdn.muckrock.com/outbound_request_attachments/94383620Anohymous/79117 /79117-SupervisorPetition-20190906_3Fx53BW.pdf, those paragraphs being incorporated by reference herein.

Furthermore, the Mayor has withheld specific metadata, partially visible on this newest PDF, that is obviously public. Note the circles with arrows on the right hand side; these indicate recurrence information in the calendar record. This information must be disclosed, as explained under heading "Recurrence Metadata" of page 4 of the link above, those paragraphs being incorporated by reference herein.

Thanks, Anonymous

PB02

On Sept. 6, 2019: Subject: RE: California Public Records Act Request #19047 Please see attached correspondence ..

Bradley Russi Deputy City Attorney Office of City Attorney Dennis Herrera City Hall, Room 234 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Pl., San Francisco, CA 94102 www.sfcityattorney.org

On Sept. 6, 2019: Subject: Calendar Request Supplemental Response Dear Anonymous,

This is a supplemental response to your request below. This provides additional responsive information regarding the requested calendar entries. This should obviate the portion of your complaint relating to entries outside the final Prop G calendar format.

The responsive information has been provided in a PDF format for its ease of transferability and accessibility, consistent with Cal. Gov. Code 6253.9(a)(1}. Metadata from any native format has not been provided to avoid risks to the security and integrity of the original record as well as the city's data and information technology systems and to avoid the release of exempt confidential or privileged information. See Cal. Gov. Code 6253.9 (f) and 6254.19. The PDF format ensures the security and integrity of the original record as well as the security and integrity of the city's data and information technology systems.

Please also note the following redactions of exempt information and the basis for each withholding:

- Redactions at the top of each page - security procedures information related to security detail redacted pursuant to Cal. Gov. Code 6254(f).

- All redactions for senior staff check-in call entries - call-in information redacted pursuant to the official information privilege. See Cal. Evid. Code Sec. 1040(b)(2}.

- All other redactions - personal cell phone numbers redacted to avoid an unwarranted breach of personal privacy pursuant to Cal. Govt. Code Secs. 6254(c}, 6254(k}; California Constitution, Art. I, Sec. 1. Regards,


May 11, 2019


The following Sunshine Task Force complaint against Office of Mayor was filed earlier today: https:// cd n ,m uckrock.com/ o utbo und_req uest_attachments/ Ano nymo us_2859385/72902/SF-Mayor-Ca lend a r-SOTFAppeal-72902. pdf

PITTJ3



Filed via MuckRock.com E-mail (Preferred): [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Upload documents directly: https://accounts.muckrock.com/accounts/login/?next=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.muckrock.com%2Faccounts%2Flogin%2F %3Fnext%3D%252Faccounts%252Fagency_login%252Foffice-of-the-mayor-3891%252Fapril-28-may-4-2019-calendarimmediate-disclosure-request-72902%252F%253Femail%253Dmayorsunshinerequests%252540sfgov.org&url_auth_token=AAAxJllHIMvSWCJDSHoGRq LEvZl%3AlhPKiR%3AasSRBkqejTZEnbOp0VykWXRJOQg Is this email coming to the wrong contact? Something else wrong? Use the above link to let us know.

For mailed responses, please address (see note): MuckRock News DEPT MR 72902 411A Highland Ave S.omerville, MA 02144-2516


On May 11, 2019: A new Sunshine Task Force .complaint against Office of Mayor is attached. We will also submit an entry on your webform.



On May 9, 2019: We do not believe your arguments re: the acceptability of PDF format are·valid and intend to contest them at the

. Sunshine Task Force. First, 6253.9(f) protects the integrity and security of the *original* record, not the copy of the record you provide to the public. Regardless, PDFs which are not digitally signed can be quite easily edited by anyone, no differently than editing say the .ics calendar file you could have provided to us. Second, 6253.9(a)(l) plainly requires provision ofthe in "any electronic format in which it holds the information" and we asked for the original format. Our understanding of computer system's indicates that format is not PDF.

In the mean time, I will point out that the original electronic format of the Mayor's calendar may contain substantial additional information (such as email addresses, conference call numbers, actual names of attendees instead of group descriptions, the acceptance/rejection of individual attendees to the invite, etc.) than that which was printed out for us. In addition to, and separately from, not being in the original format, by converting to PDF, you may have withheld such

Pa504

portions of the record from us, without pointing out to us that the portions were in fact withheld nor providing statutory justification for exemption (required by CPRA and the Sunshine Ordinance) nor providing the name and title of the official responsible for such withholding. Please provide all such information, if any information was withheld in the PDF you released to us, as compared to the original format.


Thank you.

On May 9, 2019: VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL Requestor: Anonymous

Email: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>

May 9, 2019






This information has been provided in a PDF format for its ease of transferability and accessibility, consistent with Cal. Gov. Code 6253.9(a)(1). Moreover, pursuant to Cal. Gov. Code 6253.9 (f), an agency is not required to provide an electronic record in an electronic format that would jeopardize or compromise the security or integrity of the original record. The PDF format ensures the security and integrity of the original record.

Please also note that we are responding on behalf of the Mayor's Office only, and not on behalf of other city departments.

If you have any questions about your request or would like to submit another public records request, please feel free to contact us at [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected] rg%3cmailto:[email protected]>>. Best Regards,


On May 8, 2019: Received. We are processing our response.

PWG5

Thank you,

Hank Heckel Compliance Officer Office of Mayor London N. Breed City and County of San Francisco (415) 554-4796

On May 8, 2019: We remind you of your obligation under City of San Jose v Superior Court (2017) to search personal accounts/devices for calendar items regarding the public's business, as appropriate.


On May 8, 2019: This is an Immediate Disclosure Request under the San Francisco Sunshine Ordinance, made before close of business May 8, 2019.



"1. an electronic copy, in the original electronic format, with all calendar item headers, email addresses, metadata, timestamps, attachments, appendices, exhibits, and in line images, except those explicitly exempted by the Ordinance, of the Mayor's calendar, with all items, from April 28 to May 4, 2019 (inclusive)."


However, if you choose to convert calendar items, for example, to PDF or printed format, to easily redact them, you must ensure that you have preserved the full content of the original calendar item record (as specified in request "1"), which contains many detailed headers beyond the ones generally printed out. If you instead provide PDFs or printed items with only a few of the headers or lacking attachments/images, and therefore withhold the other headers/attachments without justification, you may be in violation of SF Admin Code 67.26, 67.27, Govt Code 6253(a), 6253.9, and/or 6255, and we may challenge your decision. ·

Please provide only those copies of records available without any fees. If you determine certain recorqs would require fees, please instead provide the required notice of which of those records are available and non-exempt for inspection in-person if we so cho.ose.



Pff06

Filed via MuckRock.com E-mail (Preferred): [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Upload documents directly: https:// accounts. m uckrock.com/accou nts/login/?next=https%3A%2 F%2Fwww.muckrock.com%2 Faccou nts%2 Flogin%2F %3Fnext%3D%252Faccounts%252Fagency_login%252Foffice-of-the-mayor-3891%252Fapril-28-may-4-2019-calendarim med iate-d isclosure-req uest-72902 %252F%253 Fema il%253 Dmayo rsu nsh inereq uests%252540sfgov.o rg&url_ auth_ token=AAAxJ I I H 1 Mv5WCJ DSHoG Rq LEvZl%3AlhPKiR%3Aas5RBkqejTZEnb0pOVykWXRJOQg Is this email coming to the wrong contact? Something else wrong? Use the above link to let us know.



On May 8, 2019: Subject: California Public Records Act Request: April 28-May 4, 2019 Calendar- Immediate Disclosure Request This is an Immediate Disclosure Request under the San Francisco Sunshine Ordinance, made before close of business May 8, 2019.

** Note that all of your responses (including disclosed records) may be automatically and instantly available to the public on the MuckRock.com service used to issue this request (though I am not a Mucl<Rock representative). **



We remind· you of your obligations to provide electronic records in the original format you hold them in. Therefore, calendars exported in the .ics, iCalendar, or vCard formats with all non-exempt headers, meta data, attachments, etc. are best. Such formats are easily exportable from Google Calendar, Microsoft Outlook, Microsoft Exchange or other common calendaring/email systems.

However, if you choose to convert calendar items, for example, to PDF or printed format, to easily redact them, you must ensure that you have preserved the full content of the original calendar item record (as specified in request 11 111

),

which contains many detailed headers beyond the ones generally printed out. If you instead provide PDFs or printed items with only a few of the headers or lacking attachments/images, and therefore withhold the other headers/attachments without justification, you may be in violation of SF Admin Code 67.26, 67.27, Govt Code 6253(a), 6253.9, and/or 6255, and we may challenge your decision.


p ff'o 7



Filed via MuckRock.com E-mail {Preferred): [email protected] Upload documents directly: https://accounts.muckrock.com/accounts/login/?next=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.muckrock.com%2Faccounts%2Flogin%2F %3Fnext%3D%252Faccounts%252Fagency_login%252Foffice-of-the-mayor-3891%252Fapril-28-may-4-2019-calendarimmediate-disclosure-request-72902%252F%253Femail%253Dsotf%252540sfgov.org&url_auth_token=AAAxJlxKbHL78P4hPis991suolY%3Ali6UnA%3AI Flhvv _ WOaE6rAxTGQSu8zBHEQM Is this email coming to the wrong contact? Something else wrong? Use the above link to let us know ..



PB108

April 28, 2019 April 2019

Su Mo TuWe Th Fr Sa

1 2 3 4 5 6

May 2019 Su Mo TuWe Th Fr Sa

1 2 3 4 Sunday 7 8 910111213

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

5 6 7 8 9 10 11 i2 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 2.6 27 28 29 30 31

SUNDAY

7

8

-----------------· ------------ ------ ----- ·----·-·------ '------9

10

11 -- ------------------------ ---------

St. Francis Wood Women's League (SFWWL) Annual Luncheon (Staff: Selina L•keside. Garden Court. 599 Skyline Blvr

1 . ------------------- -----~-· ~·-----·----'~·----- --··------ -------·. --------·------.

2

3 -----··------

4

------------------------5

-------·-·-·----------

-------------- -------------------6

·------------------------ ---------~---------------

7 North Beach Otilens' Spring Dinner (Staff: Emlly Cohen i'llllifioe'Anthony

------------ ------------8

Calendar, Mayor (MYR)_ 1 B/27/2019 1:56 PM

P809

April 29, 2019 April 2019 SuMo TuWe 1h Fr Sa

123456 Monday

MONDAY

29

7

7 8 9 10 1.1 12 13 14 15 16 17 15 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

---------- ________________________ ,, ____ ,

May 2019

SuMo TuWe Th Fr Sa

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31

----·---·----·--------------....

8

9 Senior Staff Ch..:k in Call;

10

11

------ ------- ..... "

-·--·---~----~------

1 Norman Y~~. Supi!:rvi.sor: City Hall, Room 200. MO

2

3

4

5

---------------·-·-----· -------- ......

----~-·-·-- --.,-· Sdiodullng M<>i>tlng i c;1y Holl, Room 200, MO

Swearing In Ctremony for Sophie Maxwell (Staff: ~-nlshka Cheng;

Government Affairs Meeting; Oty Hall, Room 200, MO

Staffing Maetin9; cny Hall, Room 200, MO.

Housing Bond Meeting (Staff: Jeff Cky H>ll, Room 201, l~O

City Hall. Room 200, International Room

. - .:_.,;;::·.:..:: ... ·---·-

---------------------·---------------·-·---·--------···---------·---·--------------------

6 Ronnie Rodriguez (Fix-It Team)

Recode Decode Podtast live Recording (Staff. Jeff Cretan 7 Manny's, 3092 16th Street

8 ·-·-----. -----------------------------------------!


P810

April 30, 2019 Tuesday

TUESDAY

30

7

8

9 Senior Staff Chock in

10 Public Work<' Publlt Work• We•k Awards and Pins Ceremon~ (Staff: Jeff

11

12 PM . T•lephon• lnt•rview with Los Angeles Times Reporta- Heidi Chang (Staff; Jeff Cret>n

Hl311, Room LOO, MO

2 Scheduling Meeting ; City Hall, Room 200, MO

3

4

5

·----------~·---~----·---· ----------------6

----·-··-------------

-------------·-~-- -··-- . 8

Calendar, Mayor (MYR) 3

P811

April 2019

SuMo TuWe Th Fr Sa

1 2. 3 4 s 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

14151617181920 .21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

May 2019

SuMo TuWe Th Fr Sa 1 2 3 4

5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 15 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31

---- ----.-··--·---------------l

0

8/27/2019 1:55 PM

May 1, 2019 Wednesday

WEDNESDAY

SID AM:

. ··-5 AM --··--------------------··-·-······

7

9 S•nlot Staff Check In Call;

1 Q ~ive Phone Interview with KIQI Radio (Staff: Jeff Cretan

11 Fire Stntfon 5 Ribbon Cuttlng(Stnff:

12 PM Jewish Vocatlonal Service (JVS)'Strictly Business luncheon (St.aff:Joshua Arce

1

•--·- --·····-••,- ''M' ~- "

2 Naomi Kolly nnd Hn•thor Gre<1n tc: Capital fund Allocotlon (Sb>ff: Kelly Khkp•trl

Frank Fung Swearing In (Staff: Kanishka Karunaratne Cheng

3

--- .. -· -······-4 Police Chief William "Blll" Scott (Staff: Sean Hall, Room 200, MO

May 2019

Su Mo TuWe Th Fr Sa

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31

City Hall, Room 2CO, MO

Hall, Room 200. lnternat10nal Rocrn

June 2019

SUMO TuWe Th Fr Sa

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

... :::::·::.~;:........_· ·-··:::::::._·_·· ··;::::..:._· _-_ ___:__..:..:_ _____ ,

------.---------··------------------

7

-------·-··-- ·-·----

8

I----+---- ·-- ..

Calendar, Mayor (MYR) 4 8/27/20191:56 PM

P812

May 2, 2019 Thursday

THURSDAY

2

7 ·---------·------·-···-'

8

9

10

11

lest We Forget Photo Exhibit on Holo<0ust Remembron<o D•y (Staff; Emma Heiken

City Hall. R<>orn 200. MO

·. K•lly Kirkpatrick (Staff: Sean

2 ; City Holl, Room 200, MO

L~9bla'li011 Si9nih9 & t-~olbry Signing (:Swf'f; Sophio. Klttlutj City Hil\l, Room ~00, MO

4

5 . ··-· . ··-·· - .. ,. .. --.. ·-····-··"""

Alliance of Black School Educators Scholarship and Salute Banquet (Staff. De' Anthony Jones

6

May 2019

SuMo TuWe Th Fr Sa

1 2 3 4 s 6 7 8 9 10 11

12 13 14 15 16 1718 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31

June 2019

SuMo TuWe Th Fr Sa

1 2345678 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 .

······------------------------~!

Anthony Morin ity Hall. South Light Court

,.. "r_J

·----·----·-··· .. -~- --~~-------------------·

------------------··--·--·-----------------···-··--·--~--------------------------!

7

8 ··--· ······-·--------------!

··--·------·----

---·-------------

Ci:llendar, Mayor (MYR) 5 8/27/20191:56 PM

P813

May 3, 2019 Friday

FRIDAY

3 May Day

7 ----------·----·-·· ·---·-

--.~-··- ~--------

8

9

10

11

---------·--······--

2

3

4

5

6

May2019

.SuMo TuWe Th Fr Sa

, 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

12 13 14 15 1~ 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 .

June 2019

SuMo TuWe 1h Fi Sa

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 i3 14 15

16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 2s 26 21·2a zg 30

---··--··-----·-·--------

·--·-·-----·· ··--------------------

..... ---·-.--- ---------------------

0

··-- ----·----------··---------------!

---------·- ------- ----·-----·--------

---------··----------------------!

·--------------------- ·-··-··,. ...

--·-----------------------------! 7

-------·-- ---------·

8

calendar, Mciyor (MYR) 6 8/27/2019 1:56 PM

P814

ay 4, 2019 May2019 June 2019

Saturday

SuMo TuW~ Th Fr Sa

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9.10 11

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2i 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31

SuMo TuWe Th Fr Sa

1 2 3 4 s 6 .7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28.29

. 30

SATURDAY

----------·------------------·----------.----7

·-·----------·-------- -·------------- ------ ------------------------·-· -------·------··

8

·- ~"· ---·-·-- -----·------·-··-------------9

10 ----------· ----·------------.

------- ... ~--------------------------··----"' ------· -···----- -·---------------·- ~-----------11

-------- ·---------------- ----- ----------

12 PM

-------. -··---···-----~--------- ---- ---------

2

3 ... -- .......... -,. ____ ,. - -·· - " ... ----·-·' . . - .

~a;~~rr'mr I rnnrr f;und1 Cinco Doi) MnyoJohn O'Conne:ll High :School <:t1t-Show tmd Crofse (StaN;Joaqufn Torres Diana Ponce De Le-On Emma

4 John o·connell High School Par.ong Lot, 2300 Block of Harrison Street

---- ----- ---------------------------5

6 ·--· ......... ···-···"'"""-Th• A>socloUon of Chinese Tu•chors 50th Annlvemry Gala (Staff: Je1lhy La -Scottish Rite Ma;-~nic Ce_ntH, 2850 19th Avenue, Main Dining i

----~-- --··----·--------- --· ---------- ---·---------- ·---------------------------7

8

--------------- ·------ ------------------------~--- -------- -·---

Calendar, Mayor (MYR) 7 B/27/2019 1:56 PM

P815

CllY AND COUNlY OF SAN FRANCISCO

DENNIS J, HERRERA

City Attorney

OFFICE OF THE CllY ATIORNEY

BRADLEY A. RUSSI DEPUTY CITY ATIORNEY

Direct Dial: Email:

( 415) 554-4645 [email protected]

September 6, 2019

Sent via email ([email protected])

Re: Petition to Supervisor of Records

To Whom It May Concern:

This letter responds to your petition to the Supervisor of Records dated August 27, 2019, concerning a request to the Mayor's Office for calendar entries. We understand your petition to· relate to your May 8, 2019 request to the Mayor's Office for:

an electronic copy, in the original electronic format, with all calendar item headers, email addresses, metadata, timestamps, attachments, appendices, exhibits, and inline images, except those explicitly exempted by the Ordinance, of the Mayor's calendar, with all items, from April 28 to May 4, 2019 (inclusive). ·

You contend that the Mayor's Office improperly withheld responsive calendar entries that are not required to be maintained and disclosed under Section 67 .29-5 of the Sunshine Ordinance (Administrative Code Section 67.29-5). Section 67.29-5 requires certain City officials to maintain a daily calendar and prescribes the information that must be recorded and disclosed in such calendar and the process for obtaining it. Separate and apart from this requirement, this Office has. stated that where "an official or employee maintains a personal work calendar, it would be considered a public record, with exempt.material subject to redaction." (See City Attorney's Good.Government Guide, p. 121).

We understand that the Mayor's Office has now produced additional documents in response to your request. The Mayor's .Office·redacted some information from this production but di.d not other~ise withhold any responsiv'e records. If you· believe the Mayor's Office improperly appliea redactions to this production, please specify which redactions you contest. . Otherwise, we consider this petition closed.

Very t1;uly yours,

DENNIS J. HERRERA City Attorney

Bradley A. Russi Deputy City Attorney'

CITY HALL • l DR. CARLTON B. GOODLETI PlACE, CITY HALL ROOM 234 • SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94102c4682 RECEPTION: .(415) 554~47()0 · FACSIMILE: (415) 554-4699 .

n:\govern \as20l 9\0100qG5\0l390026.doc

P816

Subject: Calendar Request Supplemental Response

Dear Anonymous,

This is a supplemental response to your request below. This provides additional responsive information regarding the requested calendar entries. This should obviate the portion of your complaint relating to entries outside the final Prop G calendar format.

The responsive information has been provided in a PDF format for its ease of transferability and accessibility, consistent with Cal. Gov. Code 6253.9(a)(1). Metadata from any native format has not been provided to avoid risks to the security and integrity of the original record as well as the city's data and information technology systems and to avoid the release of exempt confidential or privileged information. See Cal. Gov. Code 6253.9 (f) and 6254.19. The PDF format ensures the security and integrity of the original record as well as the security and integrity of the city's data and information technology systems.

Please also note the following redactions of exempt information and the basis for each withholding:

- Redactions at the top of each page - security procedures information related to security detail redacted pursuant to Cal. Gov. Code 6254(f).

- All redactions for senior staff check-in call entries - call-in information redacted pursuant to the official information privilege. See Cal. Evid. Code Sec. 1040(b)(2).

- All other redactions - personal cell phone numbers redacted to avoid an unwarranted breach of personal privacy pursuant to Cal. Govt. Code Secs. 6254(c), 6254(k); California Constitution, Art. I, Sec.1. Regards,


P817

Leger, Cheryl (BOS)


Attachments:

[email protected] Wednesday, September 11, 2019 7:45 PM SOTF, (BOS)

RE: California Public Records Act Request: More Calendars Immediate Disclosure Request · Exhibit-D _ YSlbapp.pdf


September 11, 2019

. This is a follow up to a previous request:

**** File 19047 ****

Please add this email and attached exhibit to file 19047. This is a follow up to Sup. of Records petition relevant to this case.

===============

From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>

To: [email protected] Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2019 02:39:58 -0000

FOLLOWUP TO SEPT 6 2019 PETITION RE: MAYOR CALENDAR ITEMS

On Sept. 6, 2019 I made a petition to you from this email address re: the Mayor's calendar information. That petition is here: https:// cdn. muckrock.com/ outbound _request_ attachments/94383620Anonymous/79117 /79117-Su pervisorPetition-20190906. pdf (Exhibits A, B, and C were sent in the original petition email). There are a variety of different petitions from various email addresses so please make sure you are looking at the right one.

In this petition I discussed among many other issues the improper withholding of recurrence metadata hinted at by circles with arrows in the print-outs.

Attached to this email is a new Exhibit D; it is further proof that the Mayor's Office did withhold a public part of a record. Exhibit Dis a record provided by the Mayor's Office in a completely different CPRA request. It is what a print out of a calendar item looks like when it preserves much (but still not all) of the non-exempt meta data. Recall that I asked for in this present request" ... all calendar item headers, email addresses, invitations (including but not limited to indications of

. who sent the invite and when), acceptances/declinations by guests, metadata, timestamps, attachments, appendices, exhibits, and in line images, except those explicitly exempted by the Ordinance, of the Mayor's *past* calendar or schedule, with all events/items, from August 5 to August 16, 2019 (inclusive). We are specifically requesting ALL calendar/scheduling items for the Mayor, ... " The recurrence, organizer, free time, status, and importance information shown in Exhibit D is exactly that type of improperly withheld information in this petition. For some reason instead of actually printing out each of calendar item, the Mayor only printed out the summary view of the calendar which excludes a lot of information.

Pa118

I also maintain the requests for determination in the remainder of the Sept. 6 petition.

Please remember that even if the Mayor's Office provides, voluntarily or perhaps by your intra-City prodding, a supplemental disclosure after my petition, and without you ordering them to do so, your office still owes a written determination under SFAC 67 .21(d) whether any part of the records requested are public. There is no mootness rule in the Sunshine Ordinance.

You are very clear when you deny my petitions. Please be equally clear when you determine that I am correct, and that my petition should be granted, even in part, regardless of events occurring after the petition. Your determinations help build the "case law" that other members of the public can rely on without going through this drawn-out appeals process.

Thanks, Anonymous

Filed via MuckRock.com E-mail (Preferred): [email protected] Upload documents directly: https://accounts.m uckrock.com/ accounts/login/?url_a uth_ token=AAAxJ lxKbH L78 P4h Pis99 lsuo1 Y%3A1i8 F6p%3Agd iyiXo H FcSBsrMtgo-Err8-PW8&next=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.muckrock.com%2Faccounts%2Flogin%2F%3Fnext%3D%252 Faccounts%252Fagency _I ogin%252Foffice-of-the-mayor-3891%252Fmore-calendars-immediate-disclosure-request-79117%252F%253 Fema il%253 Dsotf%252540sfgov.o rg Is this email coming to the wrong contact? Something else wrong? Use the above link to let us know.


. PLEASE NOTE: This request is not filed by a MuckRock staff member, but is being sent through MuckRock by the above in order to better track, share, and manage public records .requests. Also note that improperly addressed (i.e., with the requester's name rather than "MuckRock News" and the department number) requests might be returned as undeliverable.

On Sept. 11, 2019: Subject: RE: California Public Records Act Request: More Calendars - Immediate Disclosure Request FOLLOWUP TO SEPT 6 2019 PETITION RE: MAYOR CALENDAR ITEMS

On Sept. 6, 2019 I made a petition to you from this email address re: the Mayor's calendar information. That petition is here: https://cdn.muckrock.com/outbound_request_attachments/94383620Anonymous/79117 /79117-SupervisorPetition-20190906.pdf (Exhibits A, B, and C were sent in the original petition email). There are a variety of different petitions from various email addresses so please make sure you are looking at the right one.

In this petition I discussed among many other issues the improper withholding of recurrence metadata hinted at by circles with arrows in the print-outs.

Attached to this email is a new Exhibit D; it is further proof that the Mayor's Office did withhold a public part of a record. Exhibit D is a record provided by the Mayor's Office in a completely different CPRA request. It is what a print out of a calendar item looks like when it preserves much (but still not all) of the non-exempt meta data. Recall that I asked for in

Pa219

this present request" ... all calendar item headers, email addresses, invitations (including but not limited to indications of who sent the invite and when), acceptances/declinations by guests, metadata, timestamps, attachments, appendices, exhibits, and in line images, except those explicitly exempted by the Ordinance, of the Mayor's *pa.st* calendar or schedule, with all events/items, from August 5 to August 16, 2019 (inclusive). We are specifically requesting ALL calendar/scheduling items for the Mayor, ... " The recurrence, organizer, free time, status, and importance information shown in Exhibit Dis exactly that type of improperly withheld information in this petition. For some reason instead of actually printing out each of calendar item, the Mayor only printed out the summary view of the calendar which excludes a lot of information.

I also maintain the requests for determination in the remainder of the Sept. 6 petition.

Please remember that even if the Mayor's Office provides, voluntarily or perhaps by your intra-City prodding, a supplemental disclosure after my petition, and without you ordering them to do so, your office still owes a written determination under SFAC 67.21{d) whether any part of the records requested are public. There is no mootness rule in the Sunshine Ordinance.

You are very clear when you deny my petitions. Please be equally clear when you determine that I am correct, and that my petition should be granted, even in part, regardless of events occurring after the petition. Your det.erminations help build the "case law" that other members of the public can rely on without going t~rough this drawn-out appeals process.

Thanks, Anonymous

On Sept. 6, 2019: Subject: RE: California Public Records Act Request: More Calendars- Immediate Disclosure Request **RE: File 19047**

Good afternoon SOTF,

Attached is additional supporting evidence in case 19047; please add it to the file.

On Aug. 20, the complaint committee asked questions regarding what non-Prop G calendars the Mayor's Office may possess and what metadata is being withheld.

In order to avoid the respondents·from skirting the issue through an odd interpretation of the phrase "the Mayor's calendar" in 19047, I requested in far more detail a lot more calendars immediately after that committee meeting.

1. The evidence (attached Exhibits A.and C) shows the Mayor has *at least 2* computerized calendars, one labeled "PropG, Mayor (MYR)" and another "Calendar, Mayor {MYR)". All such calendars are public records.

2. As described in my new petition to the Sup. of Records (also attached), Exhibit C shows definitively that there is at least some metadata being withheld which has no relationship to IT security information - namely the "recurrence" of a calendar invite (how often the meeting repeats). This information is stored in the event data, hinted to at in Exhibit C (circles with arrows), but not provided.

3. Also as described in that petition and Exhibit B, the Mayor is now using Gov Code 6254{f) to withhold an entire calendar. The Mayor's Office is not a local police agency, and her calendar in entirety is not law enforcment investigation information. This is beyond any reasonable interpretation of the statute.

Pa320

I will continue to pursue disclosure of all calendar records of the Mayor, and hope that the Task Force will issue an order under SFAC 67.21(e) that can be enforced at Superior Court under SFAC 67.21(f).


On Sept. 6, 2019: Subject: RE: California Public Records Act Request: More Calendars - Immediate Disclosure Request Supervisor of Records,

Attached is a new petition under SFAC 67.21(d)- ref# 79117. Also attached are 3 exhibits.


On Sept. 5, 2019: Subject: Calendar Request Please see attached, additional responsive to Item 2 of your request regarding Mayor London Breed's calendar for the dates of August 5, 2019 to August 16, 2019. This responsive information has been provided in a PDF format for its ease of transferability and accessibility, consistent with Cal. Gov. Code 6253.9(a)(1). Metadata from any native format has not been provided to avoid risks to the security and integrity of the original record as well as the city's data and information technology systems and to avoid the release of exempt confidential or privileged information. See Cal. Gov. Code 6253.9 (f) and 6254.19. The PDF format ensures the security and integrity of the original record as well as the security and integrity of the city's data and information technology systems.

Please note that information responsive to Item 1 of your request is being withheld pursuant to the security procedures information exemption of Cal. Gov. Code 6254(f). Please also note the following redactions of exempt information and the basis for each withholding:



- August 8th 11AM - personal cell phone numbers redacted to avoid an unwarranted breach of personal privacy pursuant to Cal. Govt. Code Secs. 6254(c), 6254(k); California Constitution, Art. I, Sec. 1.

- August 8th 1:30 PM - security procedures information redacted pursuant to Cal. Gov. Code 6254(f).

- August 8th 2PM - 4PM - personal cell phone numbers redacted to avoid an unwarranted breach of personal privacy pursuant to Cal. Govt. Code Secs. 6254(c), 6254(k); California Constitution, Art. I, Sec. 1.


- August 10th 8:30AM - call-in information redacted pursuant to the official information privilege. See Cal. Evid. Code Sec. 1040(b)(2).


PW21

-August 10th 11AM - personal cell phone redacted to avoid an unwarranted breach of personal privacy pursuant to Cal. Govt. Code Secs. 6254(c), 6254(k); California Constitution, Art. I, Sec. 1.


- August 12th top of page - security procedures information red<;icted pursuant to Cal. Gov. Code 6254(f).


- August 12th 3PM - 5PM - personal cell phones redacted to avoid an unwarranted breach of personal privacy pursuant to Cal. Govt. Code Secs. 6254(c), 6254(1<); California Constitution, Art. I, Sec. 1.


- August 13th 9AM - call-in information redacted pursuant to the official information privilege. See Cal. Evid. Code Sec. 1040(b)(2) .

. -August 13th 11:30-5:30 - personal cell phones redacted to avoid an unwarranted breach of personal privacy pursuant to Cal. Govt. Code Secs. 6254(c), 6254(k); California Constitution, Art. I, Sec. 1.



- August 14th 12PM - information redacted to protect the identity of individuals involved in ongoing hiring processes. See Cal. Govt. Code Secs. 6254(c), Admin. Code§ 67.24(c); personal cell phone redacted to avoid an unwarranted breach of personal privacy pursuant to Cal. Govt. Code Secs. 6254(c), 6254(1<); California Constitution, Art. I, Sec. 1.

- August 14th 1PM - personal cell phone redacted to avoid an unwarranted breach of personal privacy pursuant to Cal. Govt. Code Secs. 6254(c), 6254(k); California Constitution, Art. I, Sec. 1.

- August 14th 1:30PM - information redacted to protect the identity of individuals involved in ongoing hiring processes. See Cal. Govt. Code Secs. 6254(c), Admin. Code§ 67.24(c); personal cell phone redacted to avoid an unwarranted breach of persOnal privacy pursuant to Cal. Govt. Code Secs. 6254(c), 6254(k); California Constitution, Art. I, Sec. 1.

-August 14th 2PM - 6PM - personal cell phone redacted to avoid an unwarranted breach of personal privacy pursuant to Cal. Govt. Code Secs. 6254(c), 6254(1<); California Constitution, Art. I, Sec. 1.


-August 15th 9AM - call-in information redacted pursuant to the official information privilege. See Cal. Evid. Code Sec. 1040(b )(2).

- August 15th 10:30AM - 5:30PM - personal cell phone redacted to avoid an unwarranted breach of personal privacy pursuant to Cal. Govt. Code Secs. 6254(c), 6254(k); California .Constitution, Art. I, Sec. 1.

- August 16th top of page~ security procedures information redacted pursuant to Cal. Gov. Code 6254(f).


Pa522

- August 16th 11:30AM - 4PM - personal cell phone redacted to avoid an unwarranted breach of personal privacy pursuant to Cal. Govt. Code Secs. 6254(c), 6254(k); California Constitution, Art. I, Sec. 1.

Regards,

Hank Heckel Compliance Officer Office of Mayor London N. Breed

City and County of San Francisco

September 4, 2019


Thank you - Please provide the date, no later than Sept. 14, of your extension (GC 6253(c)).

https ://www. time and date .com/ date/ d atea d de d. htm I? m 1 =8&d1=2 l&yl= 2019&type=a d d &ay=&a m=&aw=&a d=24& rec

=

Filed via MuckRock.com E-ma ii (Preferred): 79117-76789902@requests. m uckrock.com<ma ilto :79117-76789902@req uests. m uckrock.com>

Upload documents directly: https://accounts.muckrock.com/accounts/login/?url_auth_token=AAAxJlxKbHL78P4hPis991suo1Y%3Ali5Xbz%3ASKDH_ zHRGC97MPUcTiL_QEABPM4&next=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.muckrock.com%2Faccounts%2Flogin%2F%3Fnext%3D%252 Faccounts%252Fagency_login%252Foffice-of-the-mayor-3891%252Fmore-calendars-immediate-disclosure-request-79117%252F%253Femail%253Dmayorsunshinerequests%252540sfgov.org Is this email coming to the wrong contact? Something else wrong? Use the above link to let us know.

For mailed responses, please address (see note):

MuckRock News DEPT MR 79117 411A Highland Ave Somerville, MA 02144-2516

PLEASE NOTE: This request is not filed by a MuckRock staff member, but is being sent through MuckRock by the above in order to better track, share, and manage public records requests. Also note that improperly addressed (i.e., with the

requester's name rather than "MuckRock News" and the department number) requests might be returned as

undeliverable.

On Sept. 4, 2019: Subject: Re: California Public Records Act Request: More Calendars - Immediate Disclosure Request

Dear Anonymous,

Please note that we are continuing our response to the balance of your request below under an extension pursuant to Government Code§ 6253(c) and San Francisco Admin. Code§ 67.25(b) because of the need for consultation with other

city departments. Regards,

Hank Heckel

P8~3

On Aug. 26, 2019: Subject: RE: California Public Records Act Request: More Calendars - Immediate Disclosure Request I would also like to remind you both here and in 19047 of the following quote from the Good Govt Guide "But if an official or employee maintains a personal work calendar, it would be considered a public record, with exempt material subject to redaction. " (https://www.sfcityattorney.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Good-Government-Guide-February-2019.pdf pg 121). Non-Prop G calendars are and always have been public records.

On Sept. 4, 2019: Subject: RE: California Public Records Act Request: More Calendars - Immediate Disclosure Request Thank you - Please provide the date, no laterthan Sept. 14, of your extension (GC 6253(c)).

https://www.timeanddate.com/date/dateadded.html?m1=8&d1=21&y1=2019&type=add&ay=&am=&aw=&ad=24&rec

=

On Aug. 21, 2019: Subject: California Public Records Act Request: More Calendars - Immediate Disclosure Request Mayor Breed and Mr. Heckel,

This is a new Immediate Disclosure Request under the San Francisco Sunshine Ordinance, made before start of business August 21, 2019. As you know, the SOTF Complaint Committee unanimously found on Aug 20 that the SOTF has jurisdiction, that the requested records are public, and to refer the matter to the SOTF for hearing, in both 19044 Anonymous v. City Attorney and 19047 Anonymous v. Mayor, regarding the refusal of the City Attorney and Mayor, respectively, to provide to me non-PDF electronic formats and metadata/headers for email and calendar information, among other things. I am requesting further calendar information below. It in no way replaces our complaint 19047 which we will continue to pursue.


I request under the San Francisco Sunshine Ordinance (Ordinance) and the California Public Records Act (CPRA):

"1. an electronic copy, (in the original electronic format, or alternatively in a format specified as "A" below, for all items held electronically, and a scanned copy for any physical papers), with all calendar item headers, email addresses, invitations (including but not limited to indications of who sent the invite and when), acceptances/declinations by guests, metadata, timestamps, attachments, appendices, exhibits, and in line images, except those explicitly exempted by the Ordinance, of the Mayor's *prospective/expected* calendar or schedule, with all expected events/items, from August 26 to Sept 3, 2019 (inclusive). We are specifically requesting ALL calendar/scheduling items for the Mayor, whether the Mayor herself possesses them or her staff, whether they are labeled "Prop G" or not, and whether they are on a computer or in physical form (such as a diary, a physical calendar on a wall, etc.). If any of the Mayor's staff uses any invitation/guestlist tracking systems on behalf ofthe Mayor (such as Outlook's invite mechanism), those calendars are also included within the scope of this request. Furthermore, we request that a City of San Jose v Superior Court (2017) search be performed of the Mayor, her chief of staff (and deputy chiefs), and all

· personal/secretarial/administrative assistants, such that each such official either provide all records responsive to this request present on their personal accounts/devices/property (solely to the extent the record or portion thereof relates to the public's business), or provide a declaration/affidavit that no such records exist. All such affidavits are also

requested.

2. an electronic copy, (in the original electronic format, or alternatively in a format specified as "A" below, for all items held electronically, and a scanned copy for any physical papers), with all calendar item headers, email addresses, invitations (including but not limited to indications of who sent the invite and when), acceptances/declinations by guests, metadata, timestamps, attachments, appendices, exhibits, and in line images, except those explicitly exempted by the Ordinance, of the Mayor's *past* calendar or schedule, with all events/items, from August 5 to August 16, 2019 (inclusive). We are specifically requesting ALL calendar/scheduling items for the Mayor, whether the Mayor herself possesses them or her staff, whether they are labeled "Prop G" or not, and whether they are on a computer or in physical form (such as a diary, a physical calendar on a wall, etc.). If any of the Mayor's staff uses any invitation/guestlist tracking systems on behalf of the Mayor (such as Outlook's invite mechanism), those calendars are also included within the scope of this request. Furthermore, we request that a City of San Jose v Superior Court (2017) search be performed of the Mayor, her chief of staff (and deputy chiefs), and all personal/secretarial/administrative assistants, such that each such official either provide all records responsive to this request present on their personal accounts/devices/property (solely to the extent the record or portion thereof relates to the public's business), or provide a declaration/affidavit that no such records exist. All such affidavits are also requested. II

We remind you of your obligations to provide electronic records in any format we request them in as long as either you hold them in that format, the format is available to you, or the format is easy to generate (Admin Code 67.21(1)). Therefore, calendars exported in the .ics, iCalendar, or vCard formats ("A") with all non-exempt headers, metadata, attachments, etc. are our desired formats. Such formats are easily exportable from Google Calendar, Microsoft Outlook,

· Microsoft Exchange or other common calendaring/email systems. However, if you choose to convert electronic calendar items, for example, to PDF or printed format, to easily redact them, you must ensure that you have preserved the full content of the original calendar item record (as specified in requests 1 and 2), which contains many detailed headers beyond the ones generally printed out. If you provide PDFs or printed items with only a few of the headers or lacking attachments/images, and therefore withhold the other headers/attachments without justification, you may be in violation of SF Admin Code 67.21, 67.26, 67.27, Govt Code 6253(a), 6253.9, and/or 6255, and we may challenge your decision. We *do not* waive the requirement of 67.21(1) discussed above, and are merely instructing you to preserve information even if you provide to us the undesirable PDF format.

For physical calendar items, scanning to PDF format is acceptable.

Note that it is implausible that there would be no prospective scheduling information for upcoming events the Mayor must attend to, even though Prop G requires no such calendar be kept. All calendars you keep re: the public's business are public records.




Filed via MuckRock.com E-mail (Preferred): [email protected] Upload documents directly: https://acco u nts.m uckrock.com/acco unts/login/?url_ a uth_ to ken=AAAxJ lxKbH L78P4h Pis99lsuo1 Y%3A1i8F6p%3Agd iyiXo H FcS BsrMtgo-Err8-PW8&next=https%3A%2 F%2Fwww.muckrock.com%2Faccou nts%2Flogin%2 F%3 Fnext%3 D%252 Faccounts%252 Fagency _I ogin%252Foffice-of-the-mayor-3891%252Fmore-calendars-immediate-disclosure-request-

P~5

79117%252 F%253 Fema il%253 Dsotf%252540sfgov .org Is this email coming to the wrong contact? Something else wrong? Use the above link to let us know.


PLEASE NOTE: This request is not filed by a Mucl<Rock staff member, but is being sent through Mucl<Rock by the above in order to better track, share, and manage public records requests. Also note that improperly addressed (i.e., with the requester's name rather than "MuckRock News" and the department number) requests might be returned as undeliverable.

Pa926

Philhour, Mar'an (MYR)

Subject: Location:

Start; End:

Show Time As:

Recurrence: Recurrence Pattern:

Meeting Status:

Organizer: Required Attendees:

Optional Attendees:

Importance:

Sean will be out of the office.

Canceled: Weekly Scheduling Meeting City Hall, Room 200, Sean's Office

Thu 7 /11/2019 9:30 AM

Thu 7 /11/2019 10:00 AM . Free

Weekly every Thursday from 9:30 AM to 10:00 AM

Not yet responded

Elsbernd, Sean (MYR) Cretan, Jeff (MYR); Philhour, Marjan (MYR); Bruss, Andrea (MYR); Mullan, Andrew (MYR); Sun, Selina (MYR)

MYR_Purge_andrew.mullan_06052019

High

5

P827

From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments:

Chair Wolfe,

I (BOS)

Anonymous < [email protected] >

Wednesday, November 11, 2020 8:47 AM SOTF, (BOS); Bruce Wolfe (Chair, SOTF, SF) Consideration of 19044, 19047; 19108 at Compliance sig natu re.asc

This is a request under Rule El for the consideration of various public records cases where the SOTF found in my favor, to be reviewed by Compliance committee. These were not referred by Motion when SOTF made the ruling, but under rule El they should be referred. In all cases, the City respondents have had months to comply (by law, and by your rules, they have only 5 days to comply after your order is issued), and they has not complied.

SOTF 19044 Anonymous v. Office of the City Attorney - SOTF ruled for multiple violations against Herrera's office for first withholding all metadata and without justification, and finally, after producing a small portion of the meta data, continuing to withhold the names of the email headers (which prevents the SOTF from even knowing which data has been withheld). Herrera has refused to produce the names ohhe headers and has produced nothing after your ruling. ask that you find that City Attorney Herrera as department head has willfully violated the Sunshine Ordinance and forward this case to the Ethics Commission for a hearing on official misconduct, and also to forward it to the DA and AG so I can get my records. DPW, DT, and the Police Commission have now begun producing email header data, Herrera continues to refuse. '

SOTF 19047 Anonymous v. Breed, Heckel, Office of the Mayor- SOTF ruled for multiple violations against Breed and Heckel personally and their office for withholding non-prop G Outlook calendars without justification, and withholding ICS calendars. Breed's office has refused to produce any of the ICS calendars (or the metadata they contain) in this request (but have in fact been able to produce ICS data in a different request, so it is clearly possible for them to do). I ask that you find that Mayor Breed as department head has willfully violated the Sunshine Ordinance and forward this case to the Ethics Commission for a hearing on official misconduct, and also to forward it to the DA and AG so I can get my records. DT has begun producing ICS calendar data, Breed continues to refuse in this request.

SOTF 19108 Anonymous v. Herrera - SOTF ruled that Herrera personally violated Prop G because both locations and statement of issues discussed (if the meeting was not publicly recorded) were not recorded in his calendar. While they appear to record the location now, they still do not appear to record the issues discussed. I ask that you find that City Attorney Herrera as department head has willfully violated the Sunshine Ordinance and forward this case to the Ethics Commission for a hearing on official misconduct.

Thank you for your consideration.

NOTE: Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature (signature.asc attachment), if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the government all be disc/osable public records.

Sincerely,

P8~8

Anonymous

P8~9

Leger, Cheryl (BOS)


Bruce Wolfe <[email protected]> Wednesday, November 11, 2020 12:23 PM Anonymous SOTF, (BOS); Lila LaHood Re: Consideration of 19044, 19047, 19108 at Compliance


Our referrals to AG and DA have produced no fruit either. I've spoken to DA Chesa Boudin and staff a couple of times to which they will only take up an issue if it can be prosecuted with a crime. This needs to be flushed out to help them better understand why, how and what the DA's role is. Chesa will respond better and is open to helping.

Bruce Wolfe

On Wed, Nov 11, 2020, 11:32 AM Anonymous <[email protected]> wrote: Thank you both. I am aware of the issues with Ethics referrals sadly. I am asking merely that my cases do actually get heard at Compliance. Oftentimes the city only begrudgingly complies when you actually schedule a hearing and they can no longer drag their feet. (Metadata has in fact been belatedly produced only once additional hearings were scheduled by some departments)

I assume that, if the committee and full SOTF vote that the city has not complied with the ODs, the referral letter to the Ethics Commission can have details on exactly what has not been complied with, which I am happy to prove at the

1 ·Compliance committee hearing in detail. Unfortunately in the cases 19044 and 19047, the ODs don't have the detail ·' about what exactly the City has to produce (but it is in the audio recordings) and I worry that eventually institutional

memory will be lost and these cases will simply get forgotten.

Finally, because these are cases about information that SOTF has determined to be public, the SOTF is not limited to an Ethics Commission referral. Ny understanding is Ethics only deals with punishing the department head, but the SOTF

i can additionally refer to the AG and DA which I will request at the hearing as well.

Thanks you.


Sent from ProtonMail mobile

--------Original Message--------On Nov 11, 2020, 11:03 AM, Bruce Wolfe< [email protected]> wrote:

Thanks, Cheryl, but wait. Lila, I think it fair to warn Anonymous that referrals to Ethics doesn't usually produce fruit but that eeferrals has to be crafted better to assure their discovery unit finds the same as we have.

P81so

Thoughts?

Bruce Wolfe, Chair

On Wed, Nov 11, 2020, 10:34 AM SOTF, (BOS) <[email protected]> wrote:

Bruce: I can add the two City Attorney matters to the Agenda for the next CAC hearing. Is that okay with you?

Cheryl Leger


[email protected]

i Tel: 415-554-7724

Fax: 415-554-5163

www.sfbos.org

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 ond 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: Anonymous <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 2020 8:47 AM

P8~1

To: SOTF, (BOS) <[email protected]>; Bruce Wolfe (Chair, SOTF, SF) <[email protected]> Subject: Consideration of 19044, 19047, 19108 at Compliance

Chair Wolfe,

' This is a request under Rule El for the consideration of various public records cases where the SOTF found in my favor, to be reviewed by Compliance committee.

These were not referred by Motion when SOTF made the ruling, but under rule El they should be referred.

In all cases, the City respondents have had months to comply (by law, and by your rules, they have only 5 days to comply after your order is issued), and they has not complied.

SOTF 19044 Anonymous v. Office of the City Attorney- SOTF ruled for multiple violations against Herrera's office for first withholding all metadata and without justification, and finally, after producing

' a small portion of the metadata, continuing to withhold the names of the email headers (which ! prevents the SOTF from even knowing which data has been withheld). Herrera has refused to

produce the names of the headers and has produced nothing after your ruling. I ask that you find that City Attorney Herrera as department head has willfully violated the Sunshine Ordinance and forward this case to the Ethics Commission for a hearing on official misconduct, and also to forward it to the DA and AG so I can get my records. DPW, DT, and the Police Commission have now begun producing email header data, Herrera continues to refuse.

SOTF 19047 Anonymous v. Breed, Heckel, Office of the Mayor - SOTF ruled for multiple violations against Breed and Heckel personally and their office for withholding non-prop G Outlook calendars without justification, and withholding ICS calendars. Breed's office has refused to produce any of the ICS calendars (or the metadata they contain) in this request (but have in fact been able to produce ICS data in a different request, so it is clearly possible for them to do). I ask that you find that Mayor Breed as department head has willfully violate.d the Sunshine Ordinance and forward this case to the Ethics Commission for a hearing on official misconduct, and also to forward it to the DA and AG so I can get my records. DT has begun producing ICS calendar data, Breed continues to refuse in this request.

SOTF 19108 Anonymous v. Herrera - SOTF ruled that Herrera personally violated Prop G because both locations and statement of issues discussed (if the meeting was not publicly recorded) were not recorded in his calendar. While they appear to record the location nciw, they still do not appear to record the issues discussed. I ask that you find that City Attorney Herrera as department head has willfully violated the Sunshine Ordinance and forward this case to the Ethics Commission for a hearing on official misconduct.

P~32

! Thank you for your consideration.

NOTE: Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind, The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or

, fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatspever. The digital signature {signature.asc attachment), if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the government all be disclosable public records.

Sincerely,

Anonymous

4 P833

Leger, Cher I (BOS)

From: Sent: To:

. Cc: Subject: Attachments:


Wednesday, November 11, 2020 11 :33 AM [email protected]; SOTF, (BOS) [email protected] Re: Consideration of 19044, 19047, 19108 at Compliance image001.png; signature.asc

Thank you both. I am aware of the issues with Ethics referrals sadly. I am asking merely that my cases do actually get heard at Compliance. Oftentimes the city only begrudgingly complies when you actually schedule a hearing and they can no longer drag their feet. (Metadata has in fact been belatedly produced only once additional hearings were scheduled by some departments)

I assume that, if the committee and full SOTF vote that the city has not complied with the ODs, the referral letter to the Ethics Commission can have details on exactly what has not been complied with, which I am happy to prove at the Compliance committee hearing in detail. Unfortunately in the cases 19044 and 19047, the ODs don't have the detail about what exactly the City has to produce (but it is in the audio recordings) and I worry that eventually institutional memory will be lost and these cases will simply get forgotten.

Finally, because these are cases about information that SOTF has determined to be public, the SOTF is not limited to an Ethics Comm_ission referral. Ny understanding is Ethics only deals with punishing the department head, but the SOTF can additionally refer to the AG and DA which I will request at the hearing as well.

Thanks you.


Sent from Proton Mail mobile



Thoughts?

Bruce Wolfe, Chair



P8~4

Cheryl Leger


[email protected]

Tel: 415-554-7724

Fax: 415-554-5163

www.sfbos.org

~ 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.


From: Anonymous <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 2020 8:47 AM To: SOTF, (BOS) <[email protected]>; Bruce Wolfe (Chair, SOTF, SF) <[email protected]> Subject: Consideration of 19044, 19047, 19108 at Compliance

Chair Wolfe,

This is a request under Rule El for the consideration of various public records cases where the SOTF found in my favor, to be reviewed by Compliance committee.

P835


In all cases, the City respondents have had months to comply (by law, and by your rules, they have only 5 days to comply after your order is issued), an.d they has not complied.

SOTF 19044 Anonymous v. Office of the City Attorney- SOTF ruled for multiple violations against : Herrera's office for first withholding all metadata and without justification, and finally, after producing ; a small portion of the metadata, continuing to withhold the names of the email headers (which i prevents the SOTF from even knowing which data has been withheld). Herrera has refused to produce

the names of the headers and has produced nothing after your ruling. I ask that you find that City Attorney Herrera as department head has willfully violated the Sunshine Ordinance and forward this case to the Ethics Commission for a hearing on official mis.conduct, and also to forward it to the DA and AG so I can get my records. DPW, DT, and the Police Commission have now begun producing email header data, Herrera continues to refuse.

SOTF 19047 Anonymous v. Breed, Heckel, Office of the Mayor - SOTF ruled for multiple violations against Breed and Heckel personally and their office for withholding non-prop G Outlook calendars without justification, and withholding JCS calendars. Breed's office has refused to produce any of the

I JCS calendars (or the metadata they contain) in this request (but have in fact been able to produce JCS data in a different request, so it is clearly possible for them to do). I ask that you find that Mayor Breed as department head has willfully violated the Sunshine Ordinance and forward this case to the Ethics Commission for a hearing on official misconduct, and also to forward it to the DA and AG so I can get my records. DT has begun producing JCS calendar data, Breed continues to refuse in this request.

' SOTF 19108 Anonymous v. Herrera - SOTF ruled that Herrera personally violated Prop G because both locations and statement of issues discussed (if the meeting was not publicly recorded) were not recorded in his calendar. While they appear to record the location now, they still do not appear to record the issues discussed. I ask that you find that City Attorney Herrera as department head has willfully violated the Sunshine Ordinance and forward this case to the Ethics Commission for a hearing on official misconduct.


NOTE: Nothing h(:!rein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature (signature.asc attachment), if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the government all be disclosab/e public records.

P8~6

Sincerely,

Anonymous

P837

Leger, Cheryl (BOS)


Bruce Wolfe <[email protected]> Wednesday, November 11, 2020 11 :13 AM SOTF, (BOS); Lila LaHood; Fiona Hinze; Chris Hyland; Matt Yankee Meeting with Anonymous


Chairs & Administrator, Considering the enormity of complaints from Anonymous (proton mail.com) that makes up a good portion of our backlog we usually will have a meeting with the Petitioner to work out a path forward.

I'd like to schedule a meeting on Friday with Anonymous. Let's figure a time we can all meet before contacting Anonymous.

Bruce Wolfe, Chair

P81s8


I (BOS)


Thursday, November 12, 2020 10:48 AM Lila LaHood Bruce Wolfe; SOTF, (BOS)

Attachments: Re: Consideration of 19044, 19047, 19108 at Compliance signature.asc

Thank you - I am happy to present whatever detail is required for both your Compliance Committee/SOTF to make its decision in these cases, and if they are referred, for the other agencies to make their own rulings. While I understand that the referrals may not occur and even if they do occur may not be fruitful, giving up seems to be counterproductive after coming this far.

NOTE: Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature (signature.asc attachment}, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the government all be disclosable public records.

Sincerely,

Anonymous

-------Original Message-------On Wednesday, November 11th, 2020 at 5:26 PM, Lila La Hood <[email protected]> wrote:

I am happy for CAC to review cases in which city departments are not complying with SOTF orders of determination so we can refer back to the full task force with details as needed.

Lila

On Wed, Nov 11, 2020 at 12:22 PM Bruce Wolfe <[email protected]> wrote: Our referrals to AG and DA have produced no fruit either. I've spoken to DA Chesa Boudin and staff a couple of times to which they will only take up an issue if it can be prosecuted with a crime. This needs to be flushed out to help them better understand why, how and what the DA's role is. Chesa will respond better and is open to helping.

Bruce Wolfe

On Wed, Nov 11, 2020, 11:32 AM Anonymous <[email protected]> wrote: Thank you both. I am aware of the issues with Ethics referrals sadly. I am asking merely that my cases do actually get heard at Compliance. Oftentimes the city only begrudgingly complies when you actually schedule a hearing and they can no longer drag their feet. (Metadata has in fact been belatedly produced only once additional hearings were scheduled by some departments)

I assume that, if the committee and full SOTF vote that the city has not complied with the ODs, the referral letter to the Ethics Commission can have details on exactly what has not been complied with,

Pa139

which I am happy to prove at the Compliance committee hearing in detail. Unfortunately in the cases 19044 and 19047, the ODs don't have the detail about what exactly the City has to produce (but it is in the audio recordings) and I worry that eventually institutional memory will be lost and these cases will simply get forgotten.

Finally, because these are cases about information that SOTF has determined to be public, the SOTF is not limited to an Ethics Commission referral. Ny understanding is Ethics only deals with punishing the department head, but the SOTF can additionally refer to the AG and DA which I will request at the hearing as well.

' Thanks you.


Sent from ProtonM9il mobile



Thoughts?

Bruce Wolfe, Chair



Cheryl Leger

Assistant Clerk; Board of Supervisors

[email protected]

Tel: 415-554-7724

Fax: 415-554-5163

www.sfbos.org

P8~0

I i



Disc/osures: 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 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: Anonymous <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 2020 8:47 AM To: SOTF, (BOS) <[email protected]>; Bruce Wolfe (Chair, SOTF, SF) <[email protected]> Subject: Consideration of 19044, 19047, 19108 at Compliance

Chair Wolfe,

This is a request under Rule El for the consideration of various public records cases where the SOTF found in my favor, to be reviewed by Compliance committee.


In all cases, the City respondents have had months to comply (by law, and by your rules, they have only 5 days to comply after your order is issued), and they has not complied.

SOTF 19044 Anonymous v. Office of the City Attorney- SOTF ruled for multiple violations against Herrera's office for first withholding a.II metadata and without

P8341

justification, and finally, after producing a small portion of the metadata, continuing to withhold the names of the email headers (which prevents the SOTF from even knowing which data has been withheld). Herrera has refused to produce the names of the headers and has produced nothing after your ruling. J ask that you find that City Attorney Herrera as department head has willfully violated the Sunshine Ordinance and forward this case to the Ethics Commission for a hearing on official misconduct, and also to forward it to the DA and AG sci J can get my records. DPW, DT, and the Police Commission have now begun producing email header data,

i , Herrera continues to refuse. I '

I i

i ' !

, I

SOTF 19047 Anonymous v. Breed, Heckel, Office of the Mayor - SOTF ruled for multiple violations against Breed and Heckel personally and their office for withholding non-prop G Outlook calendars without justification, and withholding JCS calendars. Breed's office has refused to produce any of the JCS calen.dars (or the metadata they contain) in this request (but have in fact been able to produce JCS data in a different request, so it is clearly possible for them to do). J ask that you find that Mayor Breed as department head has willfully violated the Sunshine Ordinance and forward this case to the Ethics Commission for a hearing on official misconduct, and also to forward it to the DA and AG so J can get my records. DT has begun producing JCS calendar data, Breed continues to refuse in this request.

SOTF 19108 Anonymous v. Herrera - SOTF ruled that Herrera personally violated Prop G because both locations and statement of issues discussed (if the meeting was not publicly recorded) were not recorded in his calendar. While they appear to record the location now, they still do not appear to record the issues discussed. J ask that you find that City Attorney Herrera as department head has willfully violated the Sunshine Ordinance and forward this case to the Ethics Commission for a hearing on official misconduct.


NOTE: Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims a/I warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature (signature.asc attachment}, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information,. as I intend that these communications with the government all be disclosable public records.

Sincerely,

4 P842

Anonymous

i :

5 P843

From: Sent: To: Cc:

I {BOS)


· Wednesday, December 9, 2020 9:11 AM Lila LaHood; Bruce Wolfe (Chair, SOTF, SF) SOTF, (BOS)

Subject: Re: Consideration of 19044 and 19047 at Compliance signature.asc Attachments:

Chairs LaHood and Wolfe,

I will renew once again my request that very old ODs 19044 and 19047 be heard at Compliance this December. Other departments have now produced redacted email and calendar metadata, yet Herrera and Breed refuse to comply with your orders. I should have a chance to be heard on this matter.



Sincerely,

Anonymous

-------Original Message-------On Wednesday, September 16, 2020 10:30 AM, Anonymous <[email protected]> wrote:

Chair Wolfe,

At public comment a few meetings prior, I asked how to proceed with the City refusing to comply with SOTF orders in cases where no explicit referral to Compliance committee was made in a motion. You indicated I should make a formal request to the Chair - please consider this email such a request to refer 19044 and 19047 to Compliance Committee to determine whether or not the City has complied and investigate Dennis Herrera and London Breed, as department heads of the City Attorney's and Mayor's offices respectively, for willful violation and referral to Ethics Commission pursuant to SFAC 67.34.

After various attempts to get the City to comply voluntarily with the original requests and orders in SOTF 19044 and 19047, for months after your orders, they have not done so.

The outstanding parts of ODs that the City has yet to comply with are as follows:

- 19044 - City Attorney's Office was found to have violated, among other laws, 67.26 for overredacting email headers. You may remember they produced the following

pg144

document: https://cdn.muckrock.com/foia files/2019/05/17 /4-18-19 Email Received Redacted.pdf which does not even have the names of common email headers and the timestamp the email was received unredacted. They continue to refuse even to lesser redact that single already-existing document, after your order.

- 19047 - London Breed, Hank Heckel, and Mayor's Officewas found to have violated, among other laws, 67.21 and 67.26 for not producing non-Prop G calendars and ICS files. Heckel at first indicated he would hold the ICS disclosures pending your task force's metadata hearing, which as you may remember found that metadata was a public record and should be provided in redacted form like other records. After that hearing, Heckel still refused to comply. (They did later on produce the non-Prop G calendars, but they did not produce any of the request's ICS files, redacted in any form at all. As Vice Chair Wolf noted in the hearing, the SOTF can't opine on whether a particular ICS is redacted appropriately until they the City produces some redacted document first, and then the SOTF can judge the appropriateness, for example as in the 19044 case).

If needed, I am happy to produce transcripts of the original hearings to clarify any matters or if new members of the task force may lack context from the original hearings. The level of detail of the minutes copied into the ODs is unfortunately not always very specific especially with respect to matters like electronic metadata.


NOTE: Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature (signature.asc attachment), if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not iriclude any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the government all be disclosable public records.

Sincerely,

Anonymous

From: Sent: To:

Cc: Subject: Attachments:

I (BOS)

Anonymous < [email protected] > Wednesday, December 9, 2020 4:25 PM Breed, Mayor London (MYR); Heckel, Hank (MYR); MayorSunshineRequests, MYR (MYR); Elsbernd, Sean (MYR) SOTF, (BOS) Immediate Disclosure Request - Personal Calendars - SOTF 19047 signature.asc

Mayor Breed, Sean Elsbernd, Hank Heckel, and Office of the Mayor,

Mr. Heckel: in planning to impeach you based on a review of your recorded testimony in 19047 on August20, 2019 re: Breed's calendars, I noticed some very interesting line of questioning from SOTF.

You may remember in 19047 you gave the "PropG, Mayor (MYR)" calendar, argued there were no other responsive records (a lie), and then on Sept 6, 2019 gave me a different record entitled "Calendar, Mayor (MYR)". You will also remember that you did not tell me these records existed and justify them as legally exempt. Instead, you did not even tell me (or SOTF) that they existed, even when questioned - and even as SOTF members tried to get around your word games specifically. You've never apologized to me or SOTF for pulling that.stunt of pretending records didn't exist and I've never appreciated it. Especially mnsidering how you continue to willfully violate the SOTF's order in 19047, even after the general metadata hearings you claimed, again falsely, to be waiting for, went completely in my favor.

But the SOTF members in August 2019 had another line of questioning that we never got to the bottom of ... Does London Breed have any personal calendar accounts reflecting City business? You're required to hand those over under City of San Jose as you are well aware of. Both in that request last year, and today:

1. Therefore this is an immediate disclosure request for any calendar records for 2020 (future or past) on London Breed's personal accounts or devices related to the conduct of public business. Provide all details of each individual event as a separate record - JCS files are not required. 2. Therefore this is an immediate disclosure request for any calendar records for 2020 (future or past) on Sean Elsbernd's personal accounts or devices related to the conduct of public business. Provide all details of each individual event as a separate record - JCS files are not required. 3. Therefore this is an immediate disclosure request for any calendar records for 2020 (future or past) on Hank Heckel's personal accounts or devices related to the conduct of public business. Provide all details of each individual event as a separate record - ICS files are not required.

If these records number more than 100 pages per person, feel free to let me know what date ranges are available and I may, but am not required to, narrow the request.

DO NOT DESTROY ANY RESPONSIVE RECORDS. WE WILL APPEAL EVERY REDACTION AND WITHHOLDING.


Sincerely,

Anonymous

From: Sent: To:

Subject: Attachments:

I (BOS)

Anonymous <[email protected]> Monday, December 21, 2020 7:09 PM Heckel, Hank (MYR); Breed, Mayor London (MYR); MayorSunshineRequests, MYR (MYR); SOTF, (BOS) 19047 - Demand to produce records signature.asc

This is the repeated demand that you produce the JCS files in case 19047. You used the excuse of the metadata IT hearings to delay your compliance with the SOTF's order; then the SOTF ruled for metadata disclosure in all respects. You have long passed your timeline to produce records or to appeal the decision.

Please produce the records and comply.

NOTE: Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature (signature.asc attachment), if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the government all be disclosable public records.

Sincerely,

Anonymous

Sent from Proton Mail Mobile

1 P848

From: Sent: To:

Subject:

I (BOS)

Anonymous <[email protected]> Tuesday, December 22, 2020 7:52 AM Heckel, Hank (MYR); Breed, Mayor London (MYR); MayorSunshineRequests, MYR (MYR); SOTF, (BOS)

· Attachments: RE: 19047 - Demand to produce records signature.asc

SOTF:

It has been more than a year since your ruling in this case. The Respondents you found in violation have refused to produce even a single ICS record redacted however they wish.

In addition to finding Breed in willful violation and referred to Ethics for official misconduct, I will ask that you add a violation for unreasonable delay in a further order of determination. It is unconscionable for the Mayor's Office won't give me any of this data - this is pure defiance of the task force's authority.

There must be some punishment for City officials who disregard your orders. Mayor Breed does not have to comply at the leisure of other departments' advice which can take arbitrarily long - they have to comply because you issued the order.

Indefinitely drawing out records request for years -- my request was made ~1.5 years ago! -- is a tactic to discourage the exercise of my and others' rights to public information and to defeat the entire purpose of having this task force determine what is public.

NOTE: Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warr,anties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature (signature.asc attachment}, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the government all be disclosable public records.

Sincerely,

Anonymous


On Mon, Dec 21, 2020 at 11:11 PM, Anonymous <[email protected]> wrote:

Mayor Breed, Hank Heckel, and Office of the Mayor,

> I understand that you have not agreed to a pilot protocol including a metadata field "green list" proposed by the Department of Technology and continue to disagree with the boundaries drawn by the City's technical experts.

I don't know what you mean by this statement. I am in fact part of the pilot that DT is running and DT has in fact given me !CS data (and email header data) redacted carefully, and I have

given them feedback on the parts I still think can be disclosed. OT and I don't agree on all of the fields, but that doesn't mean I got nothing - I got most of them. Hopefully we will agree before their own hearing before SOTF, but if not, SOTF can sort out the differences. We have almost complete agreement plus/minus one field on email, and there are a handful few more fields of disagreement on ICS. ·

If you remember what happened in 19047, the SOTF pointed out that they can't a priori tell your office what to redact and what not to redact because you had produced no ICS file (unlike say Herrera's office which bad produced - https://cdn.muckrock.com/foia files/2019/05/17 /4-18-19 Email Received Redacted.pdf - some .email headers that SOTF could actually look at and judge was not minimally redacted in 19044).

You need to actually produce some ICS records, redacted how you think is compliant (per DT's greenlist or not), and only then can SOTF actually judge it.

There is no excuse that you, Mayor Breed, and the Office of the Mayor have refused to produce a single ICS record in 19047 over a year since this ruling. How can DPW do many of these in a matter of days after their committee hearing, without any order against them, and you still won't do even one record?

NOTE: Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature (signature.asc attachment), if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that thE;se communications with the government all be disclosab/e public records.

Sincerely,

Anonymous


On Mon, Dec 21, 2020 at 10:49 PM, Heckel, Hank (MYR) <[email protected]> wrote:

Dear Anonymous,

We understand and respect the rulings of SOTF.on these issues. We are continuing to consult with the Department ofTechnology and the City Attorney's Office regarding the scope of any metadata, including calendar ICS data, that can be safely and efficiently disclosed without jeopardizing the safety, security and integrity of the City and County of San Francisco's computer networks, proprietary and licensed systems, and individual users' accounts. See Cal. Govt. Code § 6253.9(f); 6254.19.

As you are well aware, this task is far from simple. I understand that you have not agreed to a pilot protocol including a metadata field '1green list" proposed by the

Pisa

Department of Technology and continue to disagree with the boundaries drawn by the City's technical experts. This reflects the continuing complexity of solving the associated technical and practical challenges of providing all of the information in all of the formats you have sought, without inadvertently disclosing cyber-sensitive information or information traditionally withheld for other reasons such as privilege or privacy, that may be embedded in metadata.

Thus, we are working through additional guidance on these issues from the appropriate City professionals, and will respond further when we have a clearer understanding of our obligations under any applicable authorities or rulings, and a reliable methodology for securely and effectively producing permissibly disclosed information while safeguarding exempt information.

Regards,

Hank Heckel

Compliance Officer

Office of the Mayor


From: Anonymous <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, December 21, 2020 7:09 PM To: Heckel, Hank (MYR) <[email protected]>; Breed, Mayor London (MYR) <[email protected]>; MayorSunshineRequests, MYR (MYR) <[email protected]>; SOTF, (BOS) <[email protected]> Subject: 19047 - Demand to produce records

This is the repeated demand that you produce the ICS files in case 19047.

You used the excuse of the metadata IT hearings to delay your compliance with the SOTF's order; then the SOTF ruled for metadata disclosure in all respects.

You have long passed your timeline to produce records or to appeal the decision.



Sincerely1

Anonymous


4 P852

From: Sent: To:

Subject:

I (BOS)

Anonymous <[email protected]> Wednesday, December 23, 2020 7:25 PM SOTF, (BOS); Heckel, Hank (MYR); Breed, Mayor London (MYR); MayorSunshineRequests, MYR (MYR) Fwd: Re: [Document Released] City and County of San Francisco public records request #19-4456

Attachments: signature.asc

SOTF,

DT has now released almost completely unredacted ICS calendars.

There is no reason that the Mayor's Office cannot produce these records as ordered in SOTF 19047.

NOTE: Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature (signature.use attachment}, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the government all be disclosable public records.

Sincerely,

Anonymous

----------Forwarded message----------

From: Anonymous<[email protected]>

Date: On Wed, Dec 23, 2020 at 6:57 PM Subject: Fwd: Re: [Document Released] City and County of San Francisco public records request #19-

4456 To: Linda Gerull (CIO, SF) <[email protected]>,Michael Makstman (CISO, SF)

<M ichae I. Ma kstma [email protected]> ,sa nfra [email protected] <sa nfra ncisco@public

records-requests.com>

Cc:

Hey Linda & Michael,

The newest released ICS records are looking much better than before!

https://sanfrancisco.nextrequest.com/requests/19-4456

1. Some pieces of feedback to add to your green list:

X-MICROSOFT-CDO-IMPORTANCE: this is the importance of the meeting -

official: https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/openspecs/exchange server protocols/ms

oxcical/38b4e7a9-8dec-488a-a901-85cfe71171d8

P81s3

X-MS-OLK-APPTSEQTIME: this is when the iCalendar was created (important to the whole metadata endeavor) - official: https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/openspecs/exchange server protocols/msoxcica l/9af33d 6c-865a-467b-9c3a-751bcfb6ace0

2. And you may not want to release UID (the unique identifier of the appointment) or the ATIACH (attachments just en(:oded in large base64 blobs). The UID might allow people to spoof a reply to the calendar invite by indicating that an uninvited person is or isn't attending - I'm not certain, but also unlike the email ids it doesn't really help requesters in understanding the thread of communication. There's also no need to release the encoded massive ATIACH fields (attachments) - as long as departments provide the attachment as its own file. As base64 encoding it may not be possible to redact the portions of the underlying embedded attachments (such as if info inside the attachment is partially privileged, privacy etc.).

3. Finally, you may want to call it allowlist and denylist. I don't really care, but I'm aware San Francisco govt prefers inclusive naming - and frankly allow and deny actually describe the difference literally, instead of green/white and red/black which require some level of cultural context.

Happy holidays, and stay safe!


Sincerely,

Anonymous


On Wed, Dec 23, 2020 at 6:35 PM, City and County of San Francisco Public Records <[email protected]> wrote:

[Document Released] City and County of San Francisco public records request #19-4456

-- Attach a non-image file and/or reply ABOVE THIS LINE with a message, and it will be sent to staff on this request. --

City and Cou1

Hi there Documents have been released for record request #19-4456:

" Checkin-ElectionDT-redacted (1 ).pdf .. Friday 1-redacted.pdf .. Friday 2-redacted.pdf " FW JUS.T.l.S. Council Meeting-redacted.pdf

https://avanan.url-protection.com/v1/url?o=http%3A//sanfrancisco.nextrequest.com/requests/19-4456&g=MWl1 ZmY2NTFhNmExNmU4ZQ==&h=YzMwNDM4ZDFkM2MzYjAzNmJIOTdlNGY1ZWl5MWJhMmYwMGEOMDUwNjlmZmFhM'

Document links are valid for one month. After January 23, you will need to sign in to view the document(s).

Questions about your reque


I (BOS)

Bruce Wolfe <[email protected]> Wednesday1 December 30/ 2020 3:40 PM SOTF1 (BOS) Re: FW: 19047 - Demand to produce records

This mess.age is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Forward to CAC please.

Bruce Wolfe, Chair SF Sunshine Ordinance Task Force

(Response is very limited during business hours on business days and holidays)

On Tue, Dec 22, 2020 at 9:02 AM SOTF, (BOS) <[email protected]> wrote:

; Bruce: Anonymous makes a good point below.

Cheryl Leger


[email protected]

Tel: 415-554-7724

Fax: 415-554-5163

www.sfbos.org



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 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: Anonymous <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, December 22, 2020 7:52 AM

·, To: Heckel, Hank (MYR) <[email protected]>; Breed, Mayor London (MYR) <[email protected]>; , MayorSunshineRequests, MYR (MYR) <[email protected]>; SOTF, (BOS) <[email protected]>

Subject: RE: 19047 - Demand to produce records

SOTF:

It has been more than a year since your ruling in this case. The Respondents you found in violation have refused to produce even a single JCS record redacted however they wish.

In addition to finding Breed in willful violation and referred to Ethics for official misconduct, I will ask that you add a violation for unreasonable delay in a further order of determination. It is unconscionable for the Mayor's Office won't give me any of this data -this is pure defiance of the task force's authority.

There must be some punishment for City officials who disregard your orders. Mayor Breed does not have to comply at the leisure of other departments' advice which can take arbitrarily long - they have to comply because you issued the order.

Indefinitely drawing out records request for years -- my request was made ~i.s years ago! -- is a tactic to discourage the exercise of my and others' rights to public information and to defeat the entire purpose of having this task force determine what is public.

NOTE: Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature (signature.asc attachment), if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the

P8257

sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the ! government all be disclosable public records.

Sincerely,

Anonymous

Sent from ProtonMail Mobile

On Mon, Dec 21, 2020 at 11:11 PM, Anonymous <[email protected]> wrote:

Mayor Breed, Hank Heckel, and Office of the Mayor,

> I understand that you have not agreed to a pilot protocol including a metadata field "green list" proposed by the Department of Technology and continue to disagree with the boundaries drawn by the City's technical experts. ·

I don't know what you mean by this statement. I am in fact part of the pilot that OT is running and OT has in fact given me JCS data (and email header data) redacted carefully, and I have given them feedback on the parts I still think can be disclosed. DT and I don't agree on a// of the fields, but that doesn't mean I got nothing - I got most of them. Hopefully we will agree before their own hearing before SOTF, but if not, SOTF can sort out the differences. We have almost complete agreement plus/minus one field on email, and there are a handful few more fields of disagreement on ICS.

If you remember what happened in 1904 7, the SOTF pointed out that they can't a priori tell your office what to redact and what not to redact because you had produced no ICS file (unlike say Herrera's office which had produced - https://cdn.muckrock.com/foia files/2019/05/17 /4-18-19 Email Received Redacted.pdf- some email headers that SOTF could actually look at and judge was not minimally redacted in 19044).

Pa:Sa

You need to actually produce some ICS records, redacted how you think is compliant (per DT's greenlist or not), and only then can SOTF actually judge it.

There is no excuse that you, Mayor Breed, and the Office of the Mayor have refused to produce a single !CS record in 19047 over a year since this ruling. How can DPW do many of these in a matter of days after their committee hearing, without any order against them, and you still won't do even one record?


Sincerely,

Anonymous


On Mon, Dec 21, 2020 at 10:49 PM, Heckel, Hank (MYR) <[email protected]> wrote:

Dear Anonymous,

We understand and respect the rulings of SOTF on these issues. We are continuing to consult with the Department of Technology and the City Attorney's Office regarding the scope of any metadata, including calendar ICS data, that can be safely and efficiently disclosed without jeopardizing the safety, security and integrity of the City and County of San Francisco's computer networks, proprietary and licensed systems, and individual users' accounts. See Cal. Govt. Code § 6253.9(f); 6254.19.

P8S9

As you are well aware, this task is far from simple. I understand that you have not agreed to a pilot protocol including a metadata field "green list" proposed by the Department of Technology and continue to disagree with the boundaries drawn by the City's technical experts. This reflects the continuing complexity of solving the associated technical and practical challenges of providing all of the information in all of the formats you have sought, without inadvertently disclosing cyber-sensitive information or information traditionally withheld for other reasons such as privilege or privacy, that may be embedded in metadata.


·Regards,

Hank Heckel

Compliance Officer

Office of the Mayor


From: Anonymous <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, December 21, 2020 7:09 PM To: Heckel, Hank (MYR) <[email protected]>; Breed, Mayor London (MYR) <[email protected]>; MayorSunshineRequests, MYR {MYR) <[email protected]>; SOTF, {BOS} <[email protected]> Subject: 19047 - Demand to produce records

This is the repeated demand that you produce the JCS files in case 19047.

· You used the excuse of the metadata IT hearings to delay your compliance with the SOTF's order; then the SOTF ruled for metadata disclosure in all respects.


· P8ll0


NOTE: Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature (signature.asc attachment}, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information; as I intend that these communications with the government all be disclosable public records.

Sincerely,

Anonymous


From: Sent: To:

Subject:

Attachments:

SOTF,

I (BOS)

Anonymous <[email protected]> Thursday, December 31, 2020 5:19 PM Heckel, Hank (MYR); Elsbernd, Sean (MYR); Bruce Wolfe (Chair, SOTF, SF); SOTF, (BOS); Breed, Mayor London (MYR); Ethics Commission, (ETH); Board of Supervisors, (BOS); Lila LaHood; Andraychak, Michael (POL); CABRERA, ALICIA (CAT); [email protected] Evidence of willful violation of the Sunshine Ordinance and dishonest conduct by Mayor's Office - SOTF 19047 For Anonymous IDR 1.pdf; signature.asc

As you know, the Mayor's Office has never complied with SOTF Order 19047 from October 2019.

Attached is a record produced by SFPD, showing Mayoral "Compliance Officer" Hank Heckel privately describing to the CAO and SFPD how he can stonewall - after more than a year- my request until unknown "further developments," and advising Sgt. Andraychak that a refusal to comply with 19098 would be consistent with the Mayor's Office's refusal.

That message contained a lie by Heckel that I refused to participate in DT's metadata pilot, inducing SFPD to follow Heckel's suit in disregarding the SOTF's decision.

Not only did I participate in the pilot, but DT and I have no outstanding disputes about which fields could be disclosed for emails and calendars, and we informed the SOTF as such in SOTF 19119 ..

·Note Heckel first sent to me and SOTF this copy-paste lie on Dec 21. I immediately informed him he was mistaken about the pilot. Then on Dec 30, Heckel gave the same lie to Andraychak - even though he knew it was false.

The refusal to disclose metadata comes from the Mayor's Office, not DT or myself.

Heckel is an unrepentant, unapologetic liar and no representation he makes should be given any weight by SOTF. At each hearing of any so.rt with Hank Heckel, I will now start by listing, with evidence, each of Heckel's lies in Sunshine matters, as will I in public comment of others' cases against Heckel. ·

When this reaches Compliance this month, I will ask you not only to find Breed, Heckel, Elsbernd, and their Office in willful violation and having committed official misconduct, refer the matter to Ethics, the DA, and the AG, and refer the matter to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court, but I will also ask you to recommend the full SOTF issue a second OD in this matter finding Breed, Heckel, and the Mayor's Office violated 67.21(e) for not complying with your first order within 5 days. Every available legal procedure must be brought to bear upon these respondents.

We are at over one year now of stonewalling.

NOTE: Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature (signature.asc attachment), if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the government all be disclosab/e public records.

P8ll2

Sincerely,

Anonymous

Pff63

le er, Cheryl (BOS)


Anonymous <[email protected]> Thursday, December 31, 2020 5:44 PM Heckel, Hank (MYR) Breed, Mayor London (MYR); MayorSunshineRequests, MYR (MYR); SOTF, (BOS) RE: 19047 - Demand to produce records


As Mr. Heckel has now been told directly by DT - Heckel's statements below to SOTF on Dec 21, specifically about me refusing to DT's metadata pilot. An ethical person would retract such statements to SOTF.

NOTE: Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shaft the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature (signature.asc attachment}, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the serider. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the government all be disclosable public records.

Sincerely, .

Anonymous

------~Original Message-------On Monday, December 21st, 2020 at 10:49 PM, Heckel, Hank (MYR) <[email protected]> wrote:

Dear Anonymous,

We understand and respect the rulings of SOTF on these issues. We are continuing to consult with the Department of Technology and the City Attorney's Office regarding the scope of any metadata, including calendar JCS data, that can be safely and efficiently disclosed without jeopardizing the safety, security and integrity of the City and County of San Francisco's computer networks, proprietary and licensed systems, and individual users' accounts. See Cal. Govt. Code§ 6253.9(f); 6254.19.


1 P864


Regards,

Hank Heckel

Compliance Officer

Office of the Mayor



This is the repeated demand that you produce the !CS files in case 19047.

You used the excuse of the meta data IT hearings to delay your compliance with the SOTF's order; then the SOTF ruled for metadata disclosure in all respects.



NOTE: Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature (signature.asc attachment), if any, in this email is not an

2 P865

indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the government all be disc/osable public records.

Sincerely,

Anonymous


3 P866


Mr. Heckel:

I (BOS)

Anonymous <[email protected]> Thursday, December 31, 2020 10:39 AM Heckel, Hank (MYR); SOTF, (BOS) Gerull, Linda (TIS); Makstman, Michael (TIS); Andraychak, Michael (POL) RE: Pilot signature.asc

You are not merely a liar to SOTF (now for at least the second time), you apparently also spread your lies to at least SFPD to induce them to not comply with their independent obligations. You don't just screw with my requests to the Mayor's Office but you obstruct other agencies from complying with the law. Every lie you issue in an effort to wrest yourself of your obligations will be proven to the appropriate authorities. If you want to win, win ethically on the basis that your argument is more correct. If you had some court ruling you would have used it ages you.

Like SOTF Member Hyland stated more directly than I could at your last hearing, this is what your office does when you've got nothing.

Sgt. Andraychak - if Mr. Heckel asked you to do this, please disclose that in the immediately preceding records request. Perhaps you did not concoct this story yourself. Remember you and Chief Scott will be held responsible for your own compliance. Heckel can't shield you.

SOTF for file 19098 and file 19047


Sincerely,

Anonymous

-------Original Message-------On Thursday, December 31st, 2020 at.10:19 AM, Heckel, Hank (MYR) <[email protected]> wrote:

Anonymous,

The statement I made regarding the pilot reflected my understanding of your negotiation with DT regarding that issue. The program remains exactly that, a pilot. We will continue to consult with our IT professionals and the City Attorney's Office regarding the security risks ofthe metadata in all formats· that you have requested.

Regards,

Hank Heckel

Compliance Officer

Office of the Mayor


From: Anonymous <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, December 31, 2020 10:15 AM To: Gerull, Linda (TIS) <[email protected]>; Makstman, Michael (TIS) <[email protected]> Cc: Heckel, Hank (MYR) <[email protected]>; Andraychak, Michael (POL) <[email protected]> Subject: Pilot

Hi Linda and Michael,

Why are Heckel and Andraychak claiming I refused DT's metadata pilot? You called me, asked me, and I said I was happy to be a part of the pilot.

The City lying about my position is not acceptable. Is this just the rest of the City BS-ing as usual?

Happy new years!

Anonymous

-------Original Message-------

Pata

On Thursday, December 31st, 2020 at 10:07 AM, Anonymous <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi Mr. Heckel/ Andraychak,

SOTF: File this for Compliance in Files 19098 and 19047 please.

Are City employees now copy-pasting each others' lies? Is the copy-paste lie originating from the Mayor's Office or the City Attorney? I will soon find out.

Not only did I agree to DT's pilot, but I recently informed SOTF that at least for their own metadata complaint 19119 there were no remaining disputes - I mostly got everything I wanted (very late, but still at this point complete). CIO Gerull either disclosed or agreed, in writing, to disclose £11 of the additional fields I wanted disclosable. Unlike you, Gerull and CISO Makstman appear to respect the Sunshine Ordinance with the purpose of fulfilling the public's right access, instead of with the intent to hide lawfully disclosable information.

That's fine, both of you can keep on lying, in writing. Better record for future judges, and evidence of willful violations for me. Sgt. Andraychack, as a police officer you cannot engage in dishonesty in your job. Please retract your lies immediately.

Andraychak sent almost exactly what Heckel sent, including the underlined lie:

We understand and respect the rulings of SOTF on these issues. We are continuing to consult with the Department of Technology and the City Attorney's Office regarding the scope of any metadata, including calendar ICS data, that can be safely and efficiently disclosed without jeopardizing the safety, security and integrity of the City and County of San Francisco's computer networks, proprietary and licensed systems, and individual users' accounts. See Cal. Govt. Code? 6253.9(f); 6254.19.

As you are well aware, this task is far from simple. I understand that you have not agreed to a pilot protocol including a metadata field "green list" proposed by the

Pff169

Department of Technology and continue to disagree with the boundaries drawn by the City's technical experts. This reflects the continuing complexity of solving the associated technical and practical challenges of providing all of the information in all of the formats you have sought, without inadvertently disclosing cyber-sensitive information or information traditionally withheld for other reasons such as privilege or privacy, that may be embedded in metadata.


Sgt. Andraychak: This is an immediate disc.losure request for all communications in any form that you have received with the words "We understand and respect the rulings of SOTF on these issues"

Office of the Mayor: This is an immediate disclosure request for all communications in any form that your office has sent or received with the words "We understand and respect the rulings of SOTF on these issues"

Office of the City Attorney: This is an immediate disclosure request for all communications in any form that you have sent with the words "We understand and respect the rulings of SOTF on these issues"


Sincerely,

Anonymous

P8'70

Leger, Cheryl (BOS)

From: Anonymous < [email protected] >

Thursday, December 31, 2020 1 :28 PM Sent: To: Cc:

Gerull, Linda (TIS) Heckel, Hank (MYR); Makstman, Michael (TIS); Andraychak, Michael (POL); SOTF, (BOS); Bruce Wolfe (Chair, SOTF, SF); Cityattorney; Scott, William (POL)

.subject: RE: Metadata Pilot Attachments: signature.asc.

Thank you Ms. Gerull for the email and your work on this important issue - I continue to be happy to work with the Dept of Technology on metadata in public records, and with any other City agency or employee who also first demonstrates in good faith that they will comply, at least in principle, instead of stonewall or delay. I hope that you take up SOTF's prior invitation to present on these topics outside of the complaint context - the public should hear and have input on the good work DT is doing.

Sadly, it is not currently possible to work with the Office of the Mayor who has released no relevant information whatsoever, not even a single record, in the last year after being ordered to do so under SOTF 19047. If they change their behavior, then the cooperation, discussion, etc. they claim to seek may be possible. The ball is always in their court.

SFPD however does not have t.o go the way of the Mayor - they can choose, as Public Works did, to in demonstrate on even a single record that they will comply in SOTF 19098. I will follow up with SFPD about this option. Not doing so may help the Mayor, but that doesn't mean it is in the interest of SFPD.

I also want to point out something that I assume Ms. Gerull and Mr. Makstman are well aware of, but that Heckel, Andraychak, and the others may not be, when weighing the applicable risk:

• Every single email the City sends to a member of the public contains nearly all of the City's headers, IP addresses, signatures, and more - without any redactions at all - that are now being carefully analyzed for redactions as public records. I can see all of them right now for the email Linda just sent me. This is simply how the Internet and SMTP {the email protocol) works.

.. This isn't "hacking" or criminal activity - and is necessary to defend against not cause, spoofing and spam. Even the scary-sounding authentication headers are visible to recipients, because they generally use asymmetric, not symmetric, cryptography, and those signatures allow the computer on my side {the recipient) to verify that the email was really sent by sfgov.org for example.

.. The Chair (an IT professional) and also the then-Vice Chair (a journalist) of the SOTF pointed this out during the prior hearings with the Mayor and City Attorney.

.. Please think about these things before making over-reaching exemption claims at SOTF. They also do their research and have spent quite some time on this topic alone.


P872

Sincerely,

Anonymous


On Thursday, December 31st, 2020 at 10:41 AM, Gerull, Linda (TIS) <[email protected]> wrote:

All,

The work on the OT metadata pilot was started 6 months ago and OT researched many sources of information to determined the cybersecurity risk of email and calendar meta data. During this process, Anonymous was helpful in reviewing the metadata lists for what is cyber related, providing feedback and identifying where we had gaps. The list has changed over this time which is a standard iterative process for a technology pilot. I expect we will continue to make refinements to the Green List (now called the Allowed List) in the next weeks as the metadata redaction software tool is built and tested.

I believe we are the first to be working on protecting government networks by ensuring meta data in publicly available documents does not contain information that could enable hackers. Given the recent significant Solarwinds breach, we DO KNOW that nation states are actively and continually looking for ways to gain access to our networks. We must act to address any and all vulnerabilities and do all we can to not give hackers easy ways to gain valuable information.

This is why this project is so important. What might have started out as a discussion about meta data release has turned into a effort to close a cyber attack vector. If we are successful with this work, other state, federal and local agencies will benefit.

I have shared DT's progress on the pilot with internal teams and maybe I was not clear that this type of work is "iterative" and will evolve as we learn more. I also very much appreciate and respect Anonymous's help to be accurate, complete and build a solid understanding of why we would and would not release certain meta data fields. By mid January, OT will have the software tools prototypes and we can then assess the feasibility and ease of producing metadata.

If anyone has questions please reach out to me. Thank you for your support of DT's work.

Regards and Happy New Year,

Linda

PITT3

Linda J. Gerull

City CIO

Executive Director I Department of Technology


628.652.5182 I [email protected]

@SFCityCIO I sfgov.org/dt

$At~ FRANCISCO DEPARTMENT OF TECHNOLOGY

From: Heckel, Hank (MYR) <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, December 31, 2020 10:20 AM To: Anonymous <[email protected]>; Gerull, Linda (TIS} <[email protected]>; Makstman, Michael (TIS} <[email protected]> Cc: Andraychak, Michael (POL} <[email protected]> Subject: RE: Pilot

Anonymous,

The statement I made regarding the pilot reflected my understanding of your negotiation with OT regarding that issue. The program remains exactly that, a pilot. We will continue to consult with our IT professionals and the City Attorney's Office regarding the security risks of the metadata in all formats that you have requested.

Regards,

Hank Heckel

Compliance Officer

Office of the Mayor


From: Anonymous <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, December 31, 2020 10:15 AM

To: Gerull, Linda (TIS) <[email protected]>; Makstman, Michael (TIS) <[email protected]> Cc: Heckel, Hank (MYR) <[email protected]>; Andraychak, Michael (POL) <m ichae I .and raycha [email protected]> Subject: Pilot

Hi Linda and Michael,

Why are Heckel and Andraychak claiming I refused DT's metadata pilot? You called me, asked me, and I said I was happy to be a part of the pilot.

The City lying about my position is not acceptable. Is this just the rest of the City BS-ing as usual?

Happy new years!

Anonymous


On Thursday, December 31st, 2020 at 10:07 AM, Anonymous <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi Mr. Heckel/Andraychak,

PB75

SOTF: File this for Compliance in Files 19098 and 19047 please.

Are City employees now copy-pasting each others' lies? Is the copy-paste lie originating from the Mayor's Office or the City Attorney? I will soon find out.

Not only did I agree to DT's pilot, btJt I recently informed SOTF that at least for their own metadata complaint 19119 there were no remaining disputes - I mostly got everything I wanted (very late, but still at this point complete). CIO Gerull either disclosed or agreed, in writing, to disclose~ of the additional fields I wanted disclosable. Unlike you, Gerull and CISO Makstman appear to respect the Sunshine Ordinance with the purpose of fulfilling the public's right access, instead of with the intent to hide lawfully disclosable information.

That's fine, both of you can keep on lying, in writing. Better record for future judges, and evidence of willful violations for me. Sgt. Andraychack, as a police officer you cannot engage in dishonesty in your job. Please retract your lies immediately.

Andraychak sent almost exactly what Heckel sent, including the underlined lie:.

We understand and respe9t the rulings of SOTF on these. issues. We are continuing to consult with th.e Department of Technology and the City Attorney's Office regarding the scope of any metadata, including calendar ICS data, that can be safely and efficiently disclosed without jeopardizing the safety, security and integrity of the City and County of San Francisco's computer networks, proprietary and licensed systems, and individual users' accounts. See Cal. Govt. Code? 6253.9(f); 6254.19.


P816


Sgt. Andraychak: This is an immediate disclosure request for all communications in any form that you have received with the words "We understand and respect the rulings of SOTF on these issues"

Office of the Mayor: This is an immediate disclosure request for all communications in any form that your office has sent or received with the words "We understand and respect the rulings of SOTF on these issues"

Office of the City Attorney: This is an immediate disclosure request for all communications in any form that you have sent with the words "We understand and respect the rulings of SOTF on these issues"

NOTE: Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature (signature.asc attachment}, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the government all be disc/osable public records.

Sincerely1

Anonymous

From: Sent: To:

I (BOS)

Anonymous <[email protected]> Sunday, January 3, 2021 1:43 PM

Subject: SOTF, (BOS); COTE, JOHN (CAT); Cityattorney; Heckel, Hank (MYR) Re: John Cote 12/15/20


Hi Mr. Cote (and Mr. Heckel for good measure):

I'm answering your questions to Ms. Leger re Compliance directly.

I requested that SOTF review these cases for Compliance by email on Nov 24 cc-ed to [email protected]:

Chair LaHood,

I am renewing my request to have 19044 (Herrera), 19108 (Herrera) and 19047 (Breed) to be heard at an upcoming Compliance meeting. Orders in my favor were issued in all of these complaints, but I allege that Herrera and Breed have not complied.


Ms. Leger informed me by email on December 9th:

Anonymous: I spoke with Ms. La Hood, Chair of CAC, and have scheduled 19044, 19047 and 19108 to be heard at the January CAC hearing.

Note: Compliance in public records cases specifically is governed by SF Admin Code 67.21(e) which requires compliance 5 days after the OD. All of these cases are public records cases and long overdue. It is also governed by SOTF's Complaint Rule El which requires that "The Compliance and Amendments Committee shall review whether there has been compliance with the Order of Determination." This is not optional or discretionary.

I have asked you, many, many, times to unredact the email headers in the specific document from 19044 that you overred acted (and for Heckel, the ICS's in 19047) and you have repeatedly refused to do so. I have also retrieved your Prop G calendars which show that Herrera continues not to record the statement of issues discussed - 19108.

I am also aware there is a concerted effort by the Mayor and City Attorney's office to engage in banana republic tactics to neuter the SOTF because you do notlike its decisions, and make it purely advisory, and thus useless. Fortunately, SF Admin Code 67.21(e) (and the ability to enforce the ODs at superior court under 67.21(f)) are laws, not a SOTF rule, that endow SOTF ODs with real power, so you can't just change them.

By the happenstance of COVID affecting the SOTF schedule, Herrera has received months, and Breed over one year, to violate my rights repeatedly without any consequences whatsoever. That will now change.

NOTE: Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature (signature.asc attachment), if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the

P878

sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the government al/ be disclosable public records.

Sincerely,

Anonymous

P82?9

Leger, Cheryl (BOS)

From: Sent: To: Cc:

Subject:

Anonymous < arecordsrequestor@pr()tonmail.com > Wednesday, January 6, 2021 12:24 PM Heckel, Hank (MYR); BOS-Legislative Aides

Breed, Mayor London (MYR); MayorSunshineRequests, MYR (MYR); SOTF, (BOS); Board of Supervisors, (BOS); Kittler, Sophia (MYR); Elsbernd, Sean (MYR); Ronen, Hillary; RonenStaff (BOS)

Attachments: RE: 19047 - Demand to produce records signature.asc

SOTF:

This is a note that Respondents Breed, Heckel, and Office of the Mayor continue to violate not only the sections you

found in Order 19047, but also 67.21 (e) which required their compliance 5 days after the Order issued in October 2019, and 67.34 for their willful refusal to comply with the law, in refusing the produce the Mayor's "secret" calendar.

Respondents appear to believe that SOTF makes mere suggestions - they have apparently forgotten the terms of

67.21 (e) and 67.21 (f), by which the law requires Respondents to comply .with your OD and endows Superior Court

with the jurisdiction to enforce your orders.

Board of Supervisors: Keep this in mind when the Mayor tries to manipulate the Board into altering the

Ordinance/SOTF into going easy on the City - this is why.


Sincerely,

Anonymous


On Thursday, December 31st, 2020 at 5:43 PM, Anonymous <[email protected]> wrote:

As Mr. Heckel has now been told directly by DT- Heckel's statements below to SOTF on Dec 21, specifically about me refusing to DT's metadata pilot.

An ethical person would retract such statements to SOTF.

NOTE: Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature (signature.asc attachment), if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include

P81aO

any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the government all be disclosab/e public records.

Sincerely,

Anonymous


On Monday, December 21st, 2020 at 10:49 PM, Heckel, Hank (MYR) <[email protected]> wrote:

Dear Anonymous,

We understand and respect the rulings of SOTF on these issues. We are continuing to consult with the Department of Technology and the City Attorney's Office regarding the scope of any metadata, including calendar ICS data, that can be safely and efficiently disclosed without jeopardizing the safety, security and integrity of the City and County of San Francisco's computer networks, proprietary and licensed systems, and individual users' accounts. See Cal. Govt. Code§ 6253.9(f); 6254.19.

As you are well aware, this task is far from simple. I understand that you have not agreed to a pilot protocol including a metadata field "green list" proposed by the Department ofTechnology and continue to disagree with the boundaries drawn by the City's technical experts. This reflects the continuing complexity of solving the associated technical and practical challenges of providing all of the information in all of the formats you have sought, without inadvertently disclosing cyber-sensitive information or information traditionally withheld for other reasons such as privilege or privacy, that may be embedded in metadata.


Regards,

Hank Heckel

Compliance Officer

Office of the Mayor



This is the repeated demand that you produce the JCS files in case 19047.

You used the excuse of the metadata IT hearings to delay your compliance with the SOTF's order; then the SOTF ruled for metadata disclosure in all respects.



NOTE: Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature (signature.asc attachment), if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the government all be disclosab/e public records.

Sincerely,

Anonymous


4 P883

From: Sent: To:

Cc: Subject: Attachments:

I (BOS)

Anonymous <[email protected]> Saturday, January 9, 2021 2:09 PM Heckel, Hank (MYR); Breed, Mayor London (MYR); MayorSunshineRequests, MYR (MYR); Elsbernd, Sean (MYR); Bruss, Andrea (MYR) SOTF, (BOS); Lila LaHood; Bruce Wolfe (Chair, SOTF, SF) SOTF 19047 - Formal compliance request DT-ICS-Example.pdf; signature.asc

Hank Heckel, London Breed, Office of the Mayor:

I will ask you one more time - Please provide a compliant response to me, not just to SOTF, before the SOTF document production deadline prior to the Jan 26 compliance hearing ..

SOTF: Your Order in this case is over 440 days old. It is a pre-pandemic October 2019 order that they had 5 days to comply with.

" No ICS calendars for this request were ever produced, let alone minimally redacted. " While the Mayor did initially produce non-Prop G calendars - the ones Heckel lied to SOTF about not existing -

they have also stopped producing non-Prop G calendars, and only produce the Prop G calendars. (As a reminder, the Mayor has two separate Outlook calendars, both used for business purpose - called "Calendar, Mayor" and "PropG, Mayor")

These Respondents are incorrigible scofflaws, and SOTF should use every legal mechanism at its fingertips to hold them responsible, including referring Respondents to Ethics Commission, DA, AG, and Presiding Judge of Superior Court.

Attached is an example of DT's compliant ICS calendars - note how almost nothing is actually an IT risk (of the 6 words redacted in the entire record, DT later agreed in writing that 2 of them should not be redacted - leaving a total of 1 words for Respondents to redact).

Respondents will plead with you for yet more time so that they and Herrera can continue to indefinitely scheme. Reject their request. It is completely unreasonable to produce no new records in 440 days. As your members pointed out in the original hearing, if Respondents had given some ICS record redacted how they wished, then SOTF could judge it. But they didn't then and still haven't.

NOTE: Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. Jn no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature (signature.asc attachment), if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the government all be disclosable public records.

Sincerely,

Anonymous

1 P884

1 BEGIN:VCALENDAR 2 PRODID:-//Microsoft Corporation//Outlook 16.0 MIMEDIR//EN 3 VERSION:2.0 4 5 OT Production 6 7 8 9

METHOD:REQUEST X-MS-OLK-FORCEINSPECTOROPEN:~ BEGIN:VTIMEZONE TZID:Pacific Standard Time BEGIN:STANDARD DTSTART:l6011104T020000

Not Mayor's Office

10 RRULE:FREQ=YEARLY;BYDAY=lSU;BYMONTH=ll 11 TZOFFSETFROM:-0700 12 TZOFFSETT0:-0800 13 END:STANDARD 14 BEGIN:DAYLIGHT 15 DTSTART:l6010311T020000 16 RRULE:FREQ=YEARLY;BYDAY=2SU;BYMONTH=3 17 TZOFFSETFROM:-0800 18 TZOFFSETT0:-0700 19 END:DAYLIGHT 20 END:VTIMEZONE 21 BEGIN:VEVENT 22 ATTENDEE;CN="Arntz, John (REG)";RSVP=TRUE:mailto:[email protected] 23 ATTENDEE;CN="Sandrolini, Laurent (TIS)";RSVP=TRUE:invalid:nomail 24 CATEGORIES:Phone Call 25 CLASS:PUBLIC 26 CREATED:20200927T230156Z 27 DESCRIPTION:Topics:\n\nRLA\n\nChris's Project\n\nPrep for elections (file 28 s)\n\nStarting up Gartner\n\nBudget for FY20/21\n\n RFP for partner 29 or vendor - like LA\n\n 30 DTEND;TZID="Pacific Standard Time":20191022T150000 31 DTSTAMP:20191020T002218Z 32 DTSTART;TZID="Pacific Standard Time":20191022Tl43000 33 LAST-MODIFIED:20200927T230156Z 34 LOCATION:John's office 35 ORGANIZER;CN="Gerull, Linda (TIS)":mailto:[email protected] 36 PRIORITY:5 37 SEQUENCE:O 38 SUMMARY;LANGUAGE=en-us:Checkin-Election/DT 39 TRAN SP :IM!0m@I 40 UID:040000008200E00074C5B7101A82E00800000000C08D7B9BA186D501000000000000000 41 010000000812C2DA714COEA4E9264F02D1A505917 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69

X-ALT-DESC;FMTTYPE=text/html:<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-mic rosoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/ 12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta name=Generato r content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><style></style><! --[if gte mso 9]><xml>\n<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="l026" />\n< /xml><! [endif]--></head ><body lang=EN-US link="#0563Cl" vlink="#954F72"><div class=WordSection1>< p class=MsoNormal>Topics:<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>RLA<o:p></o:p>< /p><p class=MsoNormal>Chris&#8217\;s Project<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNor mal>Prep for elections (files)<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Starting u p Gartner<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Budget for FY20/21<o:p></o:p></ p><p class=MsoNorma]>&nbsp\;&nbsp\;&nbsp\;&nbsp\;&nbsp\j&nbsp\; RFP for pa rtner or vendor &#8211\; like LA<o:p></o:p></p></div></body></html>

X-MICROSOFT-CDO-BUSYSTATUS:BUSY P885

fo

70 X-MICROSOFT-CDO-IMPORTANCE:D 71 X-MICROSOFT-DISALLOW-COUNTER:FALSE 72 X-MS-OLK-APPTSEQTIME: !mall 73 X-MS-OLK-AUTOFILLLOCATION:

. 74 X-MS-OLK-CONFTYPE:D 75 END:VEVENT 76 END:VCALENDAR 77

DT Production Not Mayor's Office

P886

Reason

Information Security Cal. Govt. Code 6254.19

.. ion

Page(# of occurrences)

1 (2) 2 (4)

OT Production Not Mayor's Office

Description

We have withheld records responsive to your request [and/or redacted parts of the records provided in response to your request] on the basis that the information contained may reveal vulnerabilities to, or otherwise increase the potential for an attack on, an information technology system of a public agency.

P887

Leger, Che I (BOS)

From: Sent: To:

Cc:

Anonymous <[email protected]> Tuesday, January 19, 2021 1 :54 PM Heckel, Hank (MYR); Breed, Mayor London (MYR); MayorSunshineRequests, MYR (MYR); Elsbernd, Sean (MYR); Bruss, Andrea (MYR); Leger, Cheryl (BOS); Sun, Selina (MYR); Lee, Mason (MYR)

Subject: SOTF, (BOS); Lila LaHood; Bruce Wolfe (Chair, SOTF, SF) Re: SOTF 19047 - Formal compliance request signature.asc Attachments:

Pinging the Mayor's Office once again to produce records for 19047. Apparently you have until tomorrow Spm.

-------Original Message-------On Sunday, January 10th, 2021 at 2:46 PM, Anonymous <[email protected]> wrote:

Same thing here Ms. Leger- please let me know if you have received anything from the City on 19047

since the ruling in Oct 2019. They're just ignoring me.

-------Original Message-------On Saturday, January 9th, 2021at2:09 PM, Anonymous <[email protected]> wrote:

Hank Heckel, London Breed, Office of the Mayor: I will ask you on·e more time - Please provide a compliant response to me, not just to SOTF, before the SOTF document production deadline prior to the Jan 26 compliance

hearing.


" No ICS calendars for this request were ever produced, let alone minimally

redacted. .. ·While the Mayor did initially produce non-Prop G calendars - the ones Heckel

lied to SOTF about not existing - they have also stopped producing non-Prop G calendars, and only produce the Prop G calenda_rs. (As a reminder, the Mayor has two separate Outlook calendars, both used for business purpose - called

"Calendar, Mayor" and "PropG, Mayor")


Attached is an example of DT's compliant ICS calendars - note how almost nothing is actually an IT risk (of the 6 words redacted in the entire record, DT later agreed in writing that 2 of them should not be redacted - leaving a total of 4 words for Respondents to redact).

1 P888


NOTE: Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. Jn no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature (signature.asc attachment), if any, in this emaii is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the government all be disclosable public records.

Sincerely,

Anonymous

2 P889

From: Sent: To:

Cc:

I (BOS)

Anonymous <[email protected]> Wednesday, January 20, 2021 11 :34 AM Heckel, Hank (MYR); Breed, Mayor London (MYR); MayorSunshineRequests, MYR (MYR); Elsbernd, Sean (MYR); Bruss, Andrea (MYR); Leger, Cheryl (BOS); Sun, Selina (MYR); Lee, Mason (MYR)

Subject: SOTF, (BOS); Lila LaHood; Bruce Wolfe (Chair, SOTF, SF) 19047 - Calendar redaction automation


Ms. Gerull informs me she has the initial testing version of the software to automate metadata redactions and

looking for departments to try it out.

You could send some of these ICS's from 19047 through her software and reply to me/SOTF before 5 pm with the

redacted documents ...

-------Original Message-------On Tuesday, January 19th, 2021at1:53 PM, Anonymous <[email protected]> wrote:


-------Original Message-------On Sunday, Januar:v 10th, 2021at2:46 PM, Anonymous <[email protected]> wrote:

Same thing here Ms. Leger - please let me know if you have received anything from the City on 19047 since the ruling in Oct 2019. They're just ignoring me.

-------Original Message-------On Saturday, January 9th, 2021 at 2:09 PM, Anonymous <[email protected]> wrote:

Hank Heckel, London Breed, Office of the Mayor: I will ask you one more time - Please provide a compliant response to me, not just to SOTF, before the SOTF document production deadline prior to the Jan 26 compliance hearing.


" No !CS calendars for this request were ever produced, let alone minimally redacted.

.. While the Mayor did initially produce non-Prop G calendars -the ones Heckel lied to SOTF about not existing - they have also stopped producing non-Prop G calendars, and only produce the Prop G calendars. (As a reminder, the Mayor has two separate

1 P890

Outlook calendars, both used for business purpose - called "Calendar, Mayor" and "PropG, Mayor")


Attached is an example of DT's compliant ICS calendars - note how almost nothing is actually an IT risk (of the 6 words redacted in the entire record, DT later agreed in writing that 2 of them should not be redacted leaving a total of 4 words for Respondents to redact).


NOTE: Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. Jn no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature (signature.asc attachment), if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the government all be disclosable public records.

Sincerely,

Anonymous

2 P891

le er, Cheryl (BOS)


Anonymous <[email protected]> Wednesday, January 20, 2021 4:57 PM Heckel, Hank (MYR); Leger, Cheryl (BOS) MayorSunshineRequests, MYR (MYR); SOTF, (BOS) RE: 19047 - Calendar redaction automation signature.asc

I am happy to wait slightly past Spm tonight if SOTF will accept your supplement and also my immediate reply to your supplement. Ms. Leger is this ok?

I am not ok postponing this hearing however.

NOTE: 1. If you are a public official: I intend that these communications all be disclosable public records, and I will not hold in confidence any of your messages, notwithstanding any notices to the contrary. 2. Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. 3. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. 4. The digital signature (signature.asc attachment), if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender.

Sincerely,

Anonymous

-------Original Message-------On Wednesday, January 20th, 2021at4:52 PM, Heckel, Hank (MYR) <[email protected]> wrote:

Anonymous,

We will be providing a supplemental reda.cted production today relating to the metadata issue and we are assembling that now. Please stand by.

Regards,

Hank Heckel

Compliance Officer

Office of the Mayor


From: Anonymous <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 202111:34 AM To: Heckel, Hank (MYR) <[email protected]>; Breed, Mayor London (MYR) <[email protected]>; MayorSunshineRequests, MYR (MYR) <[email protected]>; Elsbernd, Sean (MYR) <[email protected]>; Bruss, Andrea (MYR) <[email protected]>; Leger, Cheryl (BOS) <[email protected]>; Sun, Selina (MYR) <[email protected]>; Lee, Mason (MYR) <[email protected]> Cc: SOTF, (BOS) <[email protected]>; Lila La Hood <[email protected]>; Bruce Wolfe (Chair, SOTF, SF) <[email protected]> Subject: 19047 Calendar redaction automation

Ms. Gerull informs me she has the initial testing version of the software to automate metadata

redactions and looking for departments to try it out.

You could send some of these ICS's from 19047 through her software and reply to me/SOTF before 5

pm with the redacted documents ...


On Tuesday, January 19th, 2021at1:53 PM, Anonymous <[email protected]> wrote:



On Sunday, January 10th, 2021at2:46 PM, Anonymous <[email protected]> wrote:

P8~3

Same thing here Ms. Leger- please let me know if you have received anything from the City on 19047 since the ruling in Oct 2019. They're just ignoring me.


On Saturday, January 9th, 2021 at 2:09 PM, Anonymous <[email protected]> wrote:


I will ask you one more time - Please provide a compliant response to me, not just to SOTF, before the SOTF document production deadline prior to the Jan 26 compliance hearing.

Your Order in this case is over 440 days old. It is a prepandemic October 2019 order that they had 5 days to comply with.

" No ICS calendars for this request were ever produced, let alone minimally redacted.

" While the Mayor did initially produce non-Prop G calendars - the ones Heckel lied to SOTF about not existing - they have also stopped producing non-Prop G calendars, and only produce the Prop G calendars. (As a reminder, the Mayor has two separate Outlook calendars, both used for business purpose - called "Calendar, Mayor" and "PropG, Mayor")


Attached is an example of DT's compliant ICS calendars -note how almost nothing is actually an IT risk (of the 6 words redacted in the entire record, DT later agreed in writing that 2 of them should not be redacted -leaving a total of 4 words for Respondents to redact).

3 P894



Sincerely,

Anonymous

I (BOS)

From: Anonymous <[email protected]> Wednesday, January 20, 2021 9:16 PM Sent:

To: Heckel, Hank (MYR) Cc: Leger, Cheryl (BOS); SOTF, (BOS) Subject: Re: FW: 19047 - Compliance Committee Hearing

signature.asc Attachments:

Ms. Leger- please include this as my cover letter in 19047. I have needed to exceed the Spm deadline because MYR also did so.

First, thank you to the Mayor's Office for providing one JCS entry in apparently minimum redacted form though I haven't had a chance to go over it in detail to review every line. Note however that this is not a record at issue in this complaint, and I still await any production of JCS in 19047 itself. Note how almost nothing was actually redacted under Gov Code 6254.19 - it is also likely that DT will agree with me that the final few remanding redactions are not required either (but I don't care to argue that here - Ms. Gerull appears to have a process to consider my requests to change the metadata Allowlist and that's a lot easier than arguing with dozens of departments)

Exec Summary: MYR invites you to do nothing further on this case, however at this time MYR has not actually complied with SOTF 19047. I would ask that your Committee move as follows if (and only if) respondents are willing to commit without an additional order by the full SOTF to follow this plan:

.. Request that Mayor London Breed, Hank Heckel, and the Office of the Mayor (violating respondents in this case) produce the requested JCS files in SOTF 19047 (using DT's metadata redaction software pilot, if they so wish) from both the Prop G and non-Prop G Mayoral calendars, with minimal redaction, on a rolling basis over the next 60 days (similar to DPW in SOTF 19097).

" Request that Respondents, in producing such records, provide a redaction key for any redactions that are not under Gov Code 6254.19 (info sec risk), pursuant to SFAC 67.26. (We need to understand exactly what MYR considers not to be a public record or exempt under some other exemption. )

.. Tb keep the matter with the committee, and continue the matter to the March 2021 Compliance meeting.

If Respondents are willing to commit to this plan of action, there is no need to - at this time - refer the matter for willful violation or further Orders by the full task force, and I am happy to work with them to see what further disputes exist (if any). But commitments are required. If Respondents will not agree, theri you should refer the matter to full SOTP for further ODs and/or willful violation.

Mr. Heckel: Do the Respondents commit to the above plan regarding this complaint?

(Aside: Although it is not within the scope of 19047 (which is about calendars), if the Mayor's Office also agrees in writing to do the same as above for the email metadata complaint pending against them (SOTF 20006, which was the email metadata split off from SOTF 19091), I can dismiss that complaint.)

MYR legal arguments:

I will repeat below my rebuttals to the CA0 1s memo in 19044, which MYR has referenced in 19047 as well. However, this is not a reconsideration hearing, for either this request or for the entire concept of metadata, so I don't have to re-argue my case and "win. 11 That being said ...

" Citation to Gov Code 6255: CAO/MYR should remind itself that the Mayo(s Sunshine suspension orders - even if they are valid - are at least supposedly only for the period of COVID emergency. They won't help CAO/MYR withhold metadata after COVID. Also, this argument is likely invalid now that software exists to do the redaction automatically and thus any argument about time is not valid.

" Claim that information is not a public record. CAO/MYR1s citation to City of San Jose leaves out important context. City of San Jose alters the earlier test from San Gabriel Tribune, etc. (which excludes "[o]nly purely personal" communications "totally void of reference to governmental activities" from the definition of public records) for records on personal devices, in order to balance employee privacy with disclosure. I've copied the full footnote below. But where the record itself is a public record, the metadata is part and parcel of the record. The record is the actual data structure retained by the government. Knowing who communicated when to whom and how they did so is in fact the conduct of public business. And CA0 1s examples about envelopes and model numbers of cabinets are actually wrong: what equipment is purchased by the City and what label was placed on a file are matters of public business. It is also wrong that metadata is not used by the City Attorney 1s Office (or the Mayor's Office) - it may not be used by most employees1 but it is used by the agency as a whole to route email to the right person. Finally, the public record definition requires evidence only of one of the requirements (prepared, owned, used, or retained) not all of them. This info is retained, otherwise they would be unable to produce it.

" NEW: MYR adds arguments (to CAUs) about whether or not information is intelligible to most employees. But that has no relevance, and no citation to court case. The only issue is whether the email is a writing (which San Gabriel Tribune describes as 111This definition is intended to cover every conceivable kind of record that is involved in the governmental process and will pertain to any new form of record-keeping instrument as it is developed. 111 This is extraordinarily broad in scope.). Furthermore, metadata does concern the conduct of public business - the Citis email servers, the times City officials send/read email, which official sends an email on behalf of their boss, whether or not the City considers something spam, etc. is all public business, not private in any form. MYR (and CAO) do not appear to cite specifically which parts of the metadata are not public records, and if they want to make such an argument they need to be specific. We are not here to litigate all metadata.

" Citation to Evid Code 1040. EC 1040 requires a harm to the interests of justice. It is possible that on occasion some metadata would harm justice - namely if it identified a person communicating confidentially with the city attorney or something similar. Ifs unclear what EC 1040 has to do with metadata generally however.

City of San Jose ruling's footnote on alteration of the scope of public records:

We recognize that this test departs from the notion that "[o]nly purely personal" communications "totally void of reference to governmental activities" are excluded from CPRNs definition of public records. (Assem. Statewide Information Policy Com., Final Rep. (Mar. 1970) 1 Assem. J. (1970 Reg. Sess.) appen. p. 9; see San Gabriel Tribune v. Superior Court, supra, 143 Cal.App.3d at p. 774.) While this conception may yield correct results in some circumstances, it may sweep too broadly in others, particularly when applied to electronic communications sent through personal accounts.


2 P897

Sincerely,

Anonymous


On Wednesday, January 20th, 2021 at 7:50 PM, Heckel, Hank (MYR) <[email protected]> wrote:

Dear Cheryl,

Please see below our response and the attachments for the Compliance Committee Hearing for 19047. I apologize for the delay and hope that this can be included in the file. Please let me know if you have any questions.

Regards,

Hank Heckel

Legal Compliance Officer

Office of the Mayor


From: Heckel, Hank (MYR) Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2021 7:49 PM To: Anonymous <[email protected]>; Leger, Cheryl (BOS) <[email protected]> Cc: MayorSunshineRequests, MYR (MYR) <[email protected]>; SOTF, (BOS) <[email protected]> Subject: RE: 19047 - Compliance Committee Hearing

Dear Anonymous,

3 P898

Please see the attached response and supplemental production relating to your request for a Compliance Committee Hearing in SOTF File 19047, scheduled for January 26. We have no objection to going forward on that day and we hope that our response addresses your concerns.

Regards,

Hank Heckel

Compliance Officer

Office of the Mayor


CC: Members ofthe Sunshine Ordinance Task Force

From: Anonymous <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2021 4:57 PM To: Heckel, Hank (MYR) <[email protected]>; Leger, Cheryl (BOS} <[email protected]> Cc: MayorSunshineRequests, MYR (MYR) <[email protected]>; SOTF, (BOS} <[email protected]> Subject: RE: 19047 - Calendar redaction automation

I am happy to wait slightly past Spm tonight if SOTF will accept your supplement and also my immediate reply to your supplement.

Ms. Leger is this ok?


NOTE: 1. If you are a public official: I intend that these communications all be disclosable public records, and I will not hold in confidence any of your messages, notwithstanding any notices to the contrary. 2. Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties,

4 P899

express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. 3. In no event shali the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. 4. The digital signature (signature.asc attachment), if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender.

Sincerely,

Anonymous

-------Original Message -------

On Wednesday, January 20th, 2021at4:52 PM, Heckel, Hank (MYR) <[email protected]> wrote:

Anonymous,

We will be providing a supplemental redacted production today relating to the metadata issue and we are assembling that now. Please stand by.

Regards,

Hank Heckel

Compliance Officer

Office of the Mayor


5. P900

From: Anonymous <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 202111:34 AM To: Heckel, Hank (MYR) <[email protected]>; Breed, Mayor London (MYR) <[email protected]>; MayorSunshineRequests, MYR (MYR) <[email protected]>; Elsbernd, Sean (MYR) <[email protected]>; Bruss, Andrea (MYR) <[email protected]>; Leger, Cheryl (BOS) <[email protected]>; Sun, Selina (MYR) <[email protected]>; Lee, Mason (MYR) <[email protected]> Cc: SOTF, (BOS) <[email protected]>; Lila LaHood <[email protected]>; Bruce Wolfe (Chair, SOTF, SF) <[email protected]> Subject: 19047 - Calendar redaction automation

Ms: Gerull informs me she has the initial testing version of the software to automate

metadata redactions and looking for departments to try it out.

You could send some of these ICS's from 19047 through her software and reply to

me/SOTF before 5 pm with the redacted documents ...

-------Original Message-------On Tuesday, January 19th, 2021at1:53 PM, Anonymous <a [email protected]> wrote:



On Sunday, January 10th, 2021 at 2:46 PM, Anonymous <[email protected]> wrote:




6 P901



SOTF:

Your Order in this case is over 440 days old. It is a pre-pandemic October 2019 order that they had 5 days to comply with.

.. No ICS calendars for this request were ever produced, let alone minimally redacted.

.. While the Mayor did initially produce non-Prop G calendars -

· the ones Heckel lied to SOTF about not existing - they have also stopped producing nonProp G calendars, and only produce the Prop G calendars. (As a reminder, the Mayor has two separate Outlook calendars, both used for business purpose - called "Calendar, Mayor" and "PropG, Mayor")


. Attached is an example of DT's compliant ICS calendars - note how almost nothing is actually an IT risk (of the 6 words redacted in the entire record, DT later agreed i~ writing that 2

7 P902

of them should not be redacted -leaving a total of 4 words for Respondents to redact).


NOTE: Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature (signature.asc attachment), if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the government all be disc/osab/e public records.

Sincerely,

Anonymous

8 P903

9 P904

I (BOS)

From: Anonymous <[email protected]> Thursday, January 21, 2021 10:49 AM Sent:

To: Cc:

Tovar, Joshua (TIS) Gerull, Linda (TIS); Heckel, Hank (MYR); SOTF, (BOS); COTE, JOHN (CAT); Makstman, Michael (TIS)

Subject: Further ICS calendar/ email fields - SOTF 19044 and 19047 sig natu re.asc Attachments:

Thanks Joshua for all your work on this!

Linda/Michael: Based on CAO/Cote's recent email header production, I'm asking for one addition to the Email allowlist at this time:

• Authentication-Results - As SOTF posited in their very first hearings on this matter - the indication of whether or not a particular email is spoofed/forged is in fact important to disclose. If forged, the email may not actually be the work of the person claimed in the From or Sender. Note that the Authentication-Results field does not include the private authentication material (i.e. any private cryptographic keys) used in authentication, it is merely the result (pass/fail) about whether the email is believed to be forged. As with the Received header, IP addresses, if any may be exempt (if for a private person) under personal privacy or (if for the City) under IT security. [citation: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8601]

I am not conceding that all of the email header values not provided by CAO are in fact exempt IT security risks. I simply don't need to fight for them in this one record at this time. Just as the. CAO lengthily disclaims, if some day a record comes up that I need to fight for a particular other header, I'll do so at that time.

And based on MYR/Heckel's calendar ICS recent production, I'm asking for the following four Calendar fields to be added to the allow list:

•. X~MS-OLK-FORCEINSPECTOROPEN - yes/no flag, indicates whether the record is calendar appointment or an export [citation: https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/openspecs/exchange server protocols/msoxcical/d2a0a079-02a6-4643-9e78-0ac35998e1fb]

• TRANSP -yes/no flag, whether or not the attendee has blocked the time as busy on their calendar [citation: https://too ls.ietf.org/htm l/rfc5545#page-102 ]

" X-MS-OLK-AUTOFILLLOCATION - yes/no flag, whether the location was automatically populated [citation: https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/openspecs/exchange server protocols/ms-oxcical/73693601-ce75-486c-9dd2-f5549d15feea]

• X-MS-OLK-CONFTYPE - integer between 0 and 2. indicates the type of conference. this doesn't actually provide conference call info, it just indicates what kind of conference it is [citation: https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/ openspecs/ exchange server protocols/ms-oxcica l/Oac38289-657 8-4a6f-b8be-efd7 4edd3d71, https:// docs.m icrosoft.com/ en-us/ openspecs/ exchange server protoco ls/ms-oxoca l/38eb04cc-92c9-4e3d-9e 80-55a9976a5b7 e]

That would make 100% of the ICS record unredacted. Please let me know DT's cybersec determination on these fields.

NOTE: 1. If you are a public official: I intend that these communications all be disclosable public records, and I will not hold in confidence any of your messages, notwithstanding any notices tb the contrary. 2. Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all

P9-05

warranties of merchantability or fitness. 3. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. 4. The digital signature (signature.asc attachment), if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender.

Sincerely,

Anonymous

------- Original Message -------On Thursday, January 21st, 2021at9:58 AM, Tovar, Joshua (TIS) <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi Linda,

Yes, confirming these headers are on the allow list.

Regards,

From: Linda Gerull <[email protected]>

Date: Thursday, January 21, 2021 at 9.:30 AM

To: Anonymous <[email protected]>

Cc: Joshua Tovar <[email protected]>

Subject: RE: Metadata compliance and SOTF 19097 - almost there!

Yup. I will check again but I believe we added these in the last round of changes.

Josh, can you please verify?

Thanks,

LG

From: Anonymous <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, January 21, 20219:29 AM To: Gerull, Linda (TIS) <[email protected]> Subject: RE: Metadata compliance and SOTF 19097 - almost there!

pg2o6

I was talking about this thread - btw.


On Tuesday, January 12th, 2021at12:39 PM, Anonymous <[email protected]> wrote:

Thank you Ms. Gerull for your team's considered judgment.

Based on DPW's production of calendar ICS records, I ask DT to consider the following for further addition to the Calendar Metadata Allow-list.

" CREATED - when the entry was created .. LAST-MODIFIED - when the entry was modified

• X-ALT-DESC - this is the formatted version of the meeting description which

should be redacted for usual privilege, privacy, etc., but not blocked completely

based on IT risk as it is now " X-MICROSOFT-CDO-IMPORTANCE - whether the meeting is flagged as Important

or not

" X-MS-OLKAPPTSEQTIME - the date the ICS was generated

" X-MS-OLK-APPTLASTSEQUENCE - the number of times the meeting has reoccurred

• X-MS-OLK-SENDER - the identity of the person who sent an invite on behalf of

another

You may also want to consider whether to remove the following items from the

Calendar Allow-list:

" UID - a unique identifier for the entry.

A number of these you had previously agreed to, but I think they might have been missed.

Thank you.

NOTE: Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties

P~07

of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature (signature.asc attachment), if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the government all be disclosable public records.

Sincerely,

Anonymous

-------Original Message------- .

On Tuesday, January 12th, 2021at11:28 AM, Gerull, Linda (TIS) [email protected] wrote:

All,

The Department of Technology cyber Security team has review this request and determined this data file can be released.

X -OriginalArrivalTime Identifies the time when the message first entered the Exchange organization.

This field will be added to the Metadata Allow List and the list will be updated.

If you have any questions please contact me.

Regadrs,

Linda

Linda J. Gerull

City CIO

Executive Director I Department of Technology




-----Original Message-----

From: Gerull, Linda (TIS) [email protected]

Sent: Monday, January 11, 2021 7:44 PM

To: Anonymous [email protected]; SOTF, (BOS)

[email protected]; Steinberg, David (DPW) [email protected]; Degrafinried, Alaric (DPW) [email protected]

Cc: Lila La Hood [email protected]; Bruce Wolfe (Chair, SOTF,

SF) [email protected]; Cityattorney [email protected]; Board of Supervisors, (BOS) [email protected];

Andraychak, Michael (POL) [email protected]; Makstman,

Michael (TIS) [email protected]; Heckel, Hank (MYR)

[email protected]

Subject: RE: Metadata compliance and SOTF 19097 - almost there!

We have received your request and we will review the addition of "X

OriginalArrivalTime" to the allow list.

Regards,

Linda

Linda J. Gerull

City CIO

Executive Director I Department ofTechnology City and County of San

Francisco



P~09

-----Original Message-----

From: Anonymous [email protected]

Sent: Monday, January 11, 2021 7:02 PM

To: SOTF, (BOS) [email protected]; Steinberg, David (DPW) [email protected]; Degrafinried, Alaric (DPW). [email protected]

Cc: Gerull, Linda (TIS) [email protected]; Lila LaHood [email protected]; Bruce Wolfe (Chair, SOTF, SF) [email protected]; Cityattorney [email protected]; Boa rd of Supervisors, (BOS) [email protected]; Andraychak, Michael (POL) [email protected]; Makstman, Michael (TIS) [email protected]; Heckel, Hank (MYR) [email protected]

Subject: Metadata compliance and SOTF 19097 - almost there!


p§10

e n nts c nt Gil I!!!

ISSI n

P911

From: Sent: To: Cc:

Subject: Attachments:

I (BOS)

Heckel, Hank (MYR) Tuesday, May 21, 2019 7:23 PM SOTF, (BOS) Breed, Mayor London (MYR); [email protected]

RE: SOTF - Complaint Filed with the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force - File No. 19047 . 5.21.19 Response to SOTF Complaint File 19047 Re Request of Anonymous.pdf; Attached Files to Response to SOTF Complaint File 19047.pdf

Dear Honorable Members of the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force,

Please see the attached response to the complaint noticed below, and the attached associated files.

Best Regards,

Hank Heckel

Compliance Officer

Office of Mayor London N. Breed


From: SOTF, (BOS)

Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2019 11:12 AM To: Heckel, Hank (MYR) <[email protected]>; Breed, London (MYR) <[email protected]>; Breed, Mayor

London (MYR) <[email protected]>

Cc: 72902-4663 7773@req uests.m uckrock.com Subject: SOTF ~Complaint Filed with the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force - File No. 19047

Good Morning:

Mayor London Breed, Hank Heckel and the Office of the Mayor have been named as Respondents 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 withiu 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 ;:i.ll relevant documents have been provided, does not exist, or has been

excluded.

PS12

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


Tel: 415-554-7724

Click here to complete a Board cif Supervisors Customer Service Satisfaction form.


Disclosures: Personal information that is provided in communications to the Board of Supervisors is subject ta 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~13

Office of the Mayor City & County of San Francisco

Via E-mail Only to [email protected]

Honorable Members of the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, Room 244 San Francisco, CA 94102

May 21, 2019

Re: File No. 19047, Anonymous (c/o [email protected]) v. Office of the Mayor, Mayor London Breed, and Hank Heckel

Dear Honorable Members of the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force ("SOTF"):

This letter serves as the response of the Office of the Mayor, Mayor London Breed and Hank Heckel (collectively "Respondents") to the complaint designated File No. 1904 7, filed by an Anonymous requestor using an email address affiliated with MuckRock.com. See Complaint Noticed to Respondents on May 14, 2019. ·The complaint alleges a violation of S.F. Administrative Code Section 67 .25 "by failing to respond to a request for public records in a timely and/or complete manner." Respondents respectfully submit that the Office of the Mayor has responded to Anonymous's request in a timely and appropriate manner and has not violated the Sunshine Ordinance.

Background

On the afternoon of May 8, 2019, the Anonymous Complainant submitted an Immediate Disclosure Request to the Office of the Mayor seeking "an electronic copy, in the original electronic format, with all calendar item headers, email addresses, metadata, timestamps, attachments, appendices, exhibits, and inline images, except those explicitly exempted by the Ordinance, of the Mayor's calendar, with all items, from April 28 to May 4, 2019 (inclusive)." See Anonymous E-mail sent at 2:09 PM, 5/8/19.

On the afternoon of May 9, 2019, the Office of the Mayor timely responded with a copy of the requested calendar entries containing the times of meetings and events, places of such meetings and events, names and information regarding attendees and a general statement of the issues discussed at a meeting or event, consistent with the "Prop G" calendar requirements. See Heckel E-mail sent at 4:13 PM, 5/9/19 and attached file; S. F. Admin Code§ 67.29-5. The Office of the Mayor provided this information in a PDF format to avoid compromising the security and integrity of the record, citing to Cal. Gov. Code 6253.9 (f) as a basis. The calendar wa:s provided in the Prop G format as required and no substantive information regarding the entries was withheld. Anonymous filed its complaint the next day seeking production of specific metadata and that the calendar be converted from Outlook into one or more formats other than PDF.

· 1 Dr. Carlton B. GoocUett Place, Room 200, San Francisco, California 94102-46·41 (415) 554-6J41

P914

Argument

Respondents have provided the requested calendar entries with all substantive information required by Prop G and have not withheld the date, time, location, subject matter or required attendee information for any item. This information was provided in a PDF format which is nearly universally accessible, which safeguards against tampering with the record in its native format and which protects against a security breach of the system on which the record was created. Anonymous' complaint is focused on information which either a) does not exist orb) comprises non-substantive metadata such as security validation information, the disclosure of which could jeopardize the security and integrity of both the system on which the file was created and the overall City system in which such records may be maintained.

Anonymous complains that the Office of the Mayor has inappropriately withheld certain types of information in its response including 1) email addresses, 2) "actual names of attendees instead of group descriptions", 3) "the acceptance/rejection of individual attendees to the invite", 4) conference call numbers, and 5) "headers, metadata, timestamps, attachments, exhibits, and inline images". See Complaint Summary pp. 000009-000011.

Available Substantive Information Has Been Provided

As an initial matter, Items 1 and 3 above have not been withheld because they do not exist. The Prop G calendar maintained by the Office of the Mayor does not use the invite feature of the Outlook calendar to invite and record attendees. Accordingly there are no associated emails and no information concerning acceptance/rejection of individual attendees to provide. Regarding Item 3 above, the Office of the Mayor has provided the names and affiliations of individual attendees for meetings or events with ten or fewer attendees as required by the Prop G ordinance. (See S. F. Admin Code§ 67.29-5 (b): "For meetings or events with ten or fewer attendees, the calendar shall also identify the individual(s) present and organization(s) represented at the meeting or event if known by the official"). The only events for which "group descriptions" were provided were events with greater than ten attendees. In addition, the date, time, location and subject matter information were provided in compliance with Prop G.

·Regarding Item 4, no conference call numbers were recorded on the calendar because such infonnation is not required under Prop G and provision of such numbers could jeopardize official, security-related, confidential, and/or privileged information which may be exchanged over the phone.

Metadata

Regarding the types of information included within Item 5 above, some of this information does not exist. For example, there are no attachments, exhibits or inline images (such as embedded images or hyperlinks) created and maintained for the calendar entries so there is no information to provide.

The remaining types of information identified - headers, metadata, and timestamps - can be broadly defined under the category of "metadata" and associated data. The term "metadata"

P915

refers to electronic data embedded in a document about the document itself. The amount of metadata available for a particular file can vary greatly depending on the software used to create the file and the system on which it is maintained. The Office of the Mayor does not routinely maintain specific types of metadata or index them as records. Further, the Office of the Mayor and City departments generally do not search for and provide metadata in response to records requests. The current administration has not in the past provided metadata in response to a similar request. Searching through metadata is a highly technical and specialized effort, and the Office of the Mayor does not include staff with experience and expertise in using, maintaining or searching metadata.

Producing documents with metadata can subject the City to security risks ahd can lead to the inadvertent disclosure of privileged information. For example, certain types of metadata associated with Outlook files can include "headers" as requested by AnonymmJ-S that are lines of code information used for validation purposes to screen files from outside sources for viruses, malware and other cyber risks. Access to this data could provide information regarding the system used by the City to protect against phishing, hacking and other cyber-attacks. (For an illustration of the risks posed by such security breaches, see the attached New York Times article regarding the hacking and crippling of the City of Atlanta's computer systems). Accordingly, the Public Records Act expressly does not require an agency to produce records in their · electronic formats if it would jeopardize or compromise the security or integrity of the original records, or of any software in which they are maintained. See Cal. Govt. Code § 6253.9(£). The Office of the Mayor cited this provision in its response to Anonymous.

To safeguard the security of the City's computer system, it is necessary to withhold metadata that describes unique identifiers for individual computer terminals and computer servers and associated security certificates and similar information. This information is highly sensitive, as disclosing it could allow a hacker to penetrate the system or enable a hacker to "spoof" emails and insert themselves into confidential and/or privileged discussions or send unauthorized emails on behalf of city officials. Thus, there is a substantial need for confidentiality that outweighs any interest the requester may have in accessing this information. See Cal. Evid. Code§ 1040.

Metadata may include a wide variety of information that the Office of the Mayor has a right, and in some cases a legal duty, to withhold from public view. For example, metadata may be used to reveal the editing history of a privileged document or communications to or from or work product by members of the City Attom'ey's Office which is exempt from disclosure under the attorney-client privilege and work product privilege. Cal. Gov't Code § 6276.04; Cal. Evid. Code§ 954; Cal. Code Civ. Proc.§ 2018.030. Disclosing metadata could also in theory reveal the identity of a confidential whistleblower or protected health information. Cal. Evid. Code § 1041; Charter§§ C3.699-13(a), Fl.107(c); C&GC Code§§ 4.120, 4.123; 45. C.F.R. §§ 164.500 et seq. Finally, there is the overarching risk that disclosure may reveal sensitive information about the operation of the Citis computer and communications system that a third party could use to hack into the system, or to otherwise undermine the integrity and security of the system.

P916

Format of Records

In connection with their request for metadata, Anonymous has sought production of the · requested records in one or more specific formats other than PDF. For example, Anonymous requests that the calendar be exported in the ".ics, iCalendar or vCard" format. None of these are the native format in which the calendar is maintained. As a practical matter, the calendar excerpts cannot be routinely provided in these fom1ats without including assoeiated metadata that should be withheld for the reasons discussed above.

Regarding the iCalendar format, conversion of the calendar to this format would simply create a "native" file of the whole calendar, as opposed to individual entries. The normal view of this format to the user also does not provide additional substantive information beyond what would be viewed in the standard Outlook view. Associated metadata would still have to be extracted from the server or the file by someone with the requisite technical expertise and should be withheld in any case, as noted above.

Regarding an .ics format, this would require exporting the file to a format that is not typically used or maintained. This also carries the same 'concerns regarding the technical steps of harvesting metadata and the risks associated with disclosing it.

Regarding V card, we have not seen an available method for saving or converting the calendar to this format that is readily accessible to the users of the system in the Office of the Mayor.

Anonymous' position regarding these formats is also not supported by the Public Records Act and the Sunshine Ordinance. Contrary to Anonymous's argument, Cal. Gov. Code 6253.9 (a), which the Office of the Mayor cited in providing the calendar entries as a PDF, does not dictate that we provide the requested files in one of the specific formats requested. Cal. Gov. Code 6253.9 (a)(l) states that the "[t]he agency shall make the information available in any electronic format in which it holds the information." The Office of the Mayor does not "hold" the Prop G calendar in an iCalendar, .ics or V card format because, as noted above, the calendar is not maintained in any of these formats. Providing the calendar in such a format or indeed any format containing the headers and other metadata requested would require a conversion or export or some other transformative step. Cal. Gov. Code 6253.9 (a)(2) separately states the "agency shall provide a copy of an electronic record in the format requested if the requested format is one that has been used by the agency to create copies for its own use or for provision to other agencies". The Office of the Mayor does not use the requested formats to create copies of the Prop G calendar for its own use or to provide it to other agencies.

Similarly, 6253.9 (f) provides support for declining to produce a record in a particular format if disclosure in such format jeopardizes the security or integrity of the record or the system on which it is maintained: "Nothing in this section shall be construed to require the public agency to release an electronic record in the electronic form in which it is held by the agency if its release would jeopardize or compromise the security or integrity of the original record or of any proprietary software in which it is maintained."

P917

Further, the Sunshine Ordinance provides that "[t]o the extent that it is technologically and economically feasible, departments that use computer systems to collect and store public records shall program and design these systems to ensure convenient, efficient, and economical public access to records." S.F. Admin Code 67.21-l(a). The Office of the Mayor has maintained the calendar entries sought and provided them in a PDF format that is convenient, efficient and economical to view. The formats sought by requestor are less universally accessible and carry risks with associated metadata. Further, nothing in the sections of the

·Sunshine Ordinance limiting or abrogating disclosure exceptions in the California Public Records Act overturns the specific protections of Cal Govt. Code 6253.9 (f) regarding data security, See S.F. Admin Code 67.24 (a)- (i).

Appropriateness of Response

Anonymous makes a secondary argument that the Office of the Mayor violated the . Sunshine Ordinance by withholding information without citing a basis for doing so. As noted

above, no substantive information was redacted or otherwise withheld from the ·Prop G calendar entries. Furthermore, regarding metadata, the Office of the Mayor noted that it was providing the information in PDF, as opposed to a native format, and specifically cited Cal Gov. Code 6253.9 (f) and its protection for the security and integrity of the record and the underlying system. Accordingly Respondents submit that Anonymous was provided with specific notice regarding the reasons for the format provided.

For all of the above reasons, the Office of the Mayor respectfully submits that it has provided a timely and appropriate response to Anonymous's request and there has been no violation of the Sunshine Ordinance. The Office of the Mayor is available to work with Anonymous and SOTF to address further questions and concerns regarding the request.

Sincerely,

Isl Hank Heckel

Hank Heckel Compliance Officer Office of the Mayor City and County of San Francisco

P918

Heckel, Hank (MVR)

From:

Sent: To: Subject:

[email protected] Wednesday, May 08, 2019 2:09 PM MayorSunshineRequests, MYR (MYR) California Public Records Act Request: April 28-May 4, 2019 Calendar -Immediate Disclosure Request

This message is from outside the City email system. Do riot open links or attachments from uhtrusted sources.

May 8, 2019

This is an Immediate Disclosure Request under the San Francisco Sunshine Ordinance, made before close of business May 8, 2019.

**Note that all of your responses (including disclosed records) may be automatically and instantly available to the public on the MuckRock.com service used to issue this request (though I am not a Muck.Rock representative). **

We request under the San Francisco Sunshine Ordinance (Ordinance) and the Califomia Public Records Act (CPRA):

11 l. an electronic copy, in the original electronic format, with all calendar item headers, email addresses, metadata, timestamps, attachments, appendices, exhibits, and inline images, except those explicitly exempted by

. the Ordinance, of the Mayor's calendar, with all items, from April 28 to May 4, 2019 (inclusive)."

We remind you of your obligations to provide electronic records in the original format you hold them in. Therefore, calendars exported in the .ks, iCalendar, or vCard formats with all non-exempt headers, metadata, attachments, etc. are best. Such formats are easily exportable ·from Google Calendar, Microsoft <:Outlook, · Microsoft Exchange or other common calendaring/email systems. I

. I

I However, if you choose to convert calendar items, for example, to PDF or printed format, to easi~y redact them, you must ensure that you have preserved the full content of the original calendar item record (as 'specified in request "l 11

), which contains many detailed headers beyond the ones generally printed out. If you instead provide PDFs or printed items with only a few of the headers or lacking attachments/images, and therefore withhold the other headers/attachments without justification, you may be in violation of SF Admin Code 67 .26, 67.27, Govt Code 6253(a); 6253,9; and/or 6255, and we may challenge your decision.

Pfoase provide only those copies of records availal)le without any fees. If you determine certain records would requite fees, please instead provide the required notice of which of those records are available and non~exempt for inspection in-person if we so choose. ·



1

P919

Filed via Muck.Rock.com E-mail (Preferred): 72902-4663 [email protected] Upload documents directly: https://accounts.muckrock. com/accounts/1ogin/?next=https%3A %2F%2Fwww.muck.rock.com%2Faccounts%2 Flogin%2F%3Fnexto/o3D%252Faccounts%252Fagency _login%252Foffice-of-tbe-mayor-3891 %252Fapril-28-may-4-:2019-calendar-immediate-disclosure-request-72902%252Fo/o253Femail%253Dmayqrsunshinerequests%252540sfgov.org&url_auth.....:token:=:AAAxJilHIMv5 WCJDSHoGRqLEvZI%3AlhOToC%3AZxoqEQlu6tRbOKZAtaUyEN5NsAQ Is this email coming to the wrong contact? Something else wrong? Use the above link to let us know.


PLEASE NOTE: This request is not filed by a Muc).(Rock staff member, but is being sent through MuckRock by the above in order to better track, share, and manage public records requests. Also note that improperly addressed (i.e., with the requester's name rather than 11Muck:Rock News 11 and the department number) requests might be returned as undeliverable.

2

Heckel, Hank (MYR)


Attachments:

VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL Requestor: Anonymous

MayorSunshineRequests, MYR (MYR) Thursday, May 09, 2019 4:13 PM [email protected]; MayorSunshineRequests, MYR (MYR) RE; California Public Records Act Request: April 2s..:May 4, 2019 Calendar - Immediate

Disclosure Request

MuckRock Calendar Request 4-27 - 5-4.pdf

Email: 72902-4663 [email protected]

May 9, 2019






This information has been provided in a PDF format for its ease of transferability and accessibility, consistent with Cal. Gov. Code 6253.9(a)(l). Moreover, pursuant to Cal. Gov. Code 6253.9 (f), an agency is not required to provide an electronic record in an electronic format that would jeopardize or compromise the security or integrity of the original record. The PDF format ensures the security and integrity of the original record.

Please also note that we are responding on behalf of the Mayor's Office only, and not on behalf of other city departments. ·

If you have any questions about your request or would like to submit another public records request, please feel free to contact us at [email protected].

Best Regards,


From: [email protected],com [rnailto:[email protected]·ck.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 08; 2019 2:22 PM

To: Mayor$unshineRequests, MYR (MYR) <[email protected]> Subjecti RE: California Publit Records Act Request: April 28~May 4, 2019 Calendar - Immediate Disclosure Request

1

P921

This message ls from outside the City email system, Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

May 8, 2019


We remind you of your obligation under City of San fose v Superior Court (2017) to search personal accounts/devices for calendar items regarding the public's business, as appropriate.

· ** Note that all of your responses (including disclosed records) may be automatically and instantly available td the public on the MuckRock.com service used to issue this request (though I am not a MuckRock representative). * *

Filed via MuckRock.com E-mail (Preferred): [email protected] Upload documents directly: https://accounts.muckrock.com/accounts/login/?next=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.muckrock.com%2Faccounts%2 .F1ogin%2F%3Fnext%3D%252Faccounts%252Fagency logi11%252Foffice-of-the-mayor-3891 %252Fapril-28-may-4-2019-calendar-immedi ate-disclosure-request-72902%252F%253 F email %253 Dmayorsunshinerequests%252540sfgov. org&url auth token=AAAxTIIHIMv5 WCJDSHoGRqLEvZI%3AlhOUOU%3AnmnEixANjDyfWbvkZ6u.ZtNUkXgl Is this email coming to the wrong contact? Something else wrong? Use the above link to let us know .

. For mailed responses, please address (see note): MuckRock News · DEPT MR 72902 41 lA Highland Ave Somerville; MA02144-2516

PLEASE NOTE: This request is not filed by a MuckRock staff member, but is being sent through MuckRock · by the above in order to better track, share, and manage public records requests. Also note that improperly addressed (i.e.~ with the requester1s name rather than i1MuckRock News 11 and the department number) requests might be returned as undeHverable.

On May 8, 2019: This is an Immediate Disclosure Request under the San Francisco Sunshine Ordinance, made before close of business May 8,.2019.

** Note that all of your responses (including 'disclosed records) may be automatically and instantly available to the pub1ic on the MuckRock.com service used to issue this request (though I am not a MuckR0.ck representative). **

We reqw~stunder the San Francisco. Sunshine Ord.inance (Ordinance) and the California Public Records Act (CPRA):

2.

P922

11 l. an electronic copy, in the original electronic format; with all calendar item headers, email addresses, metadata, timestamps, attachments, appendices, exhibits, and inline images, except those explicitly exempted by the Ordinance, of the Mayor's calendar, with all items, from April 28 to May 4, 2019 (i:nclusive). 11

We remind you of your obligations to provide electronic records in the original format you hold them in. Therefore, calendars exported in the .ics, iCalendar, or vCard fom1ats with all non-exempt headers, metadata, attachments, etc. are best. Such formats are easily exportable from Google Calendar, Microsoft Outlook, Microsoft Exchange or other common calendaring/email systems.

However, if you choose to convert calendar items, for example, to PDF or printed format, to easily redact them, you must ensure that you have preserved the full content of the original calendar item record (as specified in request "l "), which contains many detailed headers beyond the ones generally printed out. If you instead provide PDFs or printed items with only a few of the headers or lacking attachments/images, and therefore withhold the other headers/attachments without justification; you may be in violation of SF Adm:in Code 67 .26, 67.27, Govt Code 6253(a), 6253.9, and/or 6255, and we may challenge your decision.

Please provide only those copies ofrecords available without any fees. If you determine certain records would require fees, please instead provide the required notice of which of those records are available and non..,exempt for inspection in-person if we so choose.



Filed via MuckRock.com E..:mail (Preferred): 72902-4663 [email protected] Upload documents directly: https://accounts.muckrock.com/accounts/login/?next=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.muckrock.com%2Faccounts%2 Flogin%2F%3Fnext%3D%252Faccounts%252Fagency login%252Foffice..,of-the-mayor-3891 %252Fapril-28-mav-4-20 l 9-calendar-immediate-disclosure-request-72902 %252F%2 5 3 F email %25 3Dmavorsunshinereguests%252540sf gov. org&url au th token=AAAxJilHIM v5 WCJDSHoGRqLEvZI%3AlhOUOU%3AnmnEixANjDyfWhvkZ6uZtNUkX£I Is this email coming to the wrong contact? Something else wrong? Use the above link to let us know.

For mailed responses, please address (see note): MuckRock News · DEPT MR 72902 41 lA Highland Ave Somerville, MA 02144-2516

PLEASE NOTE: This request is not filed by a Muck:Rock staff member, but is being sent through MuckRock by the above in order to better track, share, and manage public records requests. Also note that improperly addressed (i.e., with the requester's na:me rather than "MuckRock News11 and the department number) requests might be returned as undeliverable.

3

P923

I April 27, 2019

8;45 AM - 9:15 AM

11:55 AM • 1:25 PM

7:05 PM • 7:20 PM

8:40 PM· 9:00 PM

7:00 PM - 7:30 PM

9:00 AM - 9;30 AM

1:05 PM • 1;30 PM

1:39 PM • 1:46 PM

1;51 PM • 2:10 PM

2:34 PM • 2:45 PM

PropG, Mayor (MYR)

North Beach Farmers Market 2.019 Season Open -- '69.9 Columbu$ Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94133

12th Annual McKinley Elementary School Dogfest -· Duboce Park, Noe Street at Dliboee Avenue, San Francisco, C:A 94114

A Banner of love Gala: A Night lri Venice ·- St. Mary's Cathedral, 1111 Gough St., San Francisco

Ballroom

Beyond Differences Gala -- Terra Gallery, 511 Harrison Street, San Francisco

Skyline Blvd, San Francisco, CA94132

North IJeach ·citizens' Spring Dinner -- 666 Filbert Street, San Francisco CA 94133

Meeting Re; St;iff Check In -- Remote Conference Call


Meeting witti President Yee Re: District 7 -- City Hall, Room 200, Mayor's Office

Attendees: President Yee, Supervisor for District 7, Board of Supervisors Jen Lowe, Legislative Aide, Board of Supervisors Mayor's Office Staff

Preis availability re: MTA Director -- City Hall, Room :ZOO

Meeting Re: Sc:heduling -· City H;ill, Room 200, Mayor's Office

Attendees: ·Mayor's Office Staff

Swearing ln Ceremony for Sophie Maxwell and Tim Paulson -- City Hall, International Room Attendees: ·

E)ophi!;'l Maxwell, Public Utilities Commission Appointee Tim Paulson, Public Utilities Commission Appointee

P924

5/8/2019 2:49 PM

l~pril 2~/2019 Contim1ed.

I

3:01 PM • 3:29 PM

3:31 PM - 4:03 PM

4:10 PM • 4:55 PM

6:00 PM • 6:30 PM

6:45 PM • 8:00 PM

9:00 AM· 9:30 AM

10:35 AM - 10:50 AM

12:00 PM - 12:30 PM

12:35 PM - l:lS PM

·PropG1 Mayor (MYR)

Harlan Kelly Jr., General Manager, San Francisco Public Utilities Commission

Larry Mazzola Jr., President (Plumbers & Pipe Fitters Local 38), Recreation and Park Commissioner

Sandra Duarte, Executive Assistant Sah Francisco Building and· Construction Trades Council

Kim Tavaglione, Campaign Director San Francisco Labor Council Willie Adams, Port Commissioner Mayor's Office Staff

Meeting Re: Government Affairs·· City Hall, Room 200, Mayor's Office


Meeting Re: City Operations and Government Affairs-· City Hall, Room 200, Mayor's Office


Meeting Re: Housing Bond with Supervisor Yee and Members of Housing Bond Working Group·· City Hall, Room 201.

Grace Cathedral Paris Sister City Event for Notre-Dame, Sri Lanka, Louisiana Churches, and Poway Synagogue •• Grace Cathedral, 1100 California Street

Recode Decode Podcast Live Recording •• M;mny'5 3092 16th Street

Meeting Re: Staff (:heck In -- Remote Conference Call


Public Works Week Awards and Pins Ceremony .. Moscone Center South, Third Floor, 747 Howard St.

Telephone lM()rview witk LA limes Reporter Heidi Chang·· Remote Conference Call

Attendees: H13idi Chang, Reporter, Los Angeles Times Mayor's Office Staff

Meeting Re~ Budget -- City Hall, ROom 200, Mayor's Office


2

P925

5/8/2019 2:49 PM

1:34 PM • 1:50 PM

2:09 PM • 2:45 PM

2:46 PM - 3:10 PM

3:10 PM - 3:33 PM

9;00 AM • 9:30 AM

10:00 AM • 10:30 AM

11:00 AM ~ 11:30 AM

12:00 PM • 12:15 PM

2;04 PM • 2:43 PM

2:43 PM - 2:46 PM

PropG, Mayor (MYR)

' '! ,;

'' :. ' :- ':. : ' ; : ' ': '',~ '

Meeting Re: Town Hall Event -- City Hall, Room :ZOO, Mayor's Office


Meeting with San Frands.;:c;> Latino Parity Olnd Equity Coali~ion -- CitY Hall, Room 201

Meeting Re: Schedullrig ··City Hall, Room 20-0, Mayor's Office





Attendees: ·Mayor's Office Staff

live Phone Interview with KlQl -- Remote Conference Call Attendees:

Isabel Gutierrez, KIQI radio host Marcos Gutierrez, KIQI radio host Mayor's Office Staff

Fire Station 5 Ribbon Cutting -- Fire station No. S, 1301 Turk St

Jewish Vocational Service Strictly Business Luncheon •• San Francisco Marriott Marquis Hotel, 780 Ml$Sion Street

Meeting Re: City Services ahd Operation$·- City Hall, Room 200, Mayor's Office



Swearing In Ceremony for Frank Fung·· City Hall, R0om 200, Mayor's Office

Attehdees: · Frank Fung, Planning Commissioner Aimee Fung, Daughter of Frank Fung Mayor's Office Staff

3

P926

5/8/2019 2:49 PM

· / May· 1, 2019 Continued . ·I I . -

2:46 PM - 3:13 PM Meeting Re: City Servi<:es and Operations -- City Hall, Room 200, Mayor's Office

Attendees: . Naomi Kelly, City Administrator, City and County of San Francisco Heather Green, Capital Planning Director, City and County of San


3:20 PM - 3:45 PM Meet and Greet w!th Jamestown Community Center Youth - City Hall, International Room

4:03 PM - 4:35 PM Meeting Re: Public Safety·· City Hall, Room 200 Mayor's Office Attendees:

.. Chief William Scott, SFPD " Deirdre Hussey, Director of Policy and Public Affairs, SFPD • Mayor's Office Staff

5:00 PM - 5:20 PM Neighborhood Preference Program Tour <1nd SFGovTV Interview -- 150 Van Ness

Attendees: Mario Watts, resident Josiah Watts, resident Kim Dubin, Mayor's Office of Community Housing and Development' Max Barnes, Mayor's Office of Community Housing and Development Mayor's Office Staff

5:30 PM - 6:00 PM Asian Pacific American Heritage Month Awards and Reception Celebration -· Herbst Theater, War Memorial Building, 401 Van Ness Avenue

1Ni~§2,2019 .1

9:00 AM • 9:30 AM Meeting Re: Staff Check In -· Remote Conference Call Attendees:

Mayor's Office Staff

12:04 PM • 12:25 PM Lest We Forget Photo Exhibit for Holocaust Remembrance Pay -- City Hall, Room 200, Mayor's Office

12:31 PM • 12:48 PM Meeting re: Street Conditions -- City Hall, Room 200, Mayor's Office

Attendees:

PropG, Mayor (MYR)

Chief William Scott, Chief of Police, San Francisco Police Department

Dr. Grant Colfax, Director, Department of Pqblic Health Mohammed Nuru, Director, Department of Public Works Jeff Kositkyj Director, Department of Homelessness and Supportive

Housing Mary Ellen Carrol, Dir~ctor, Department of Emergency Management Mayor's Office Staff ·

4 5/8/2019 2:49 PM

P927

· lr31 PM - 2;11 PM

2:14 PM • 2:34 PM

. 2:34 PM - 3:07 PM

3:10 PM - 3:41 PM

3:42 PM • 3:49 PM

5:30 PM - (i:OO PM

9:00 AM • 9:30 AM

. l:OO PM - 1:30 PM

PropG, Mayor (MYR)

Meeting Re: Budget -· Ofy Hall, Room 200, Mayor's Office


Meeting Re; Communications ·- City Hall, Room 200, Mayor's Office

Attendees: Mayor•s Office Staff

Meetlng Re: Commissions -- City Hiilll, Room 200, MO


Me.eting with Civil Grand Jury·· City Hall, Room 201

Meeting Re: <;;ovemment Affairs ··City Hall, Room 200, Mayor's Office

Attendees: Kylecia Broom, Community Development Assistant, Mayor's Office

of Housing and Community Development Steven Gallardo, Displaced Tenant Housing Preference Program

Coordinator, Mayor's Office of Housing and Community Development Mayor's Office Staff

Alliance of Black School Educators Scholarship and Salute Banquet·· African American Art Jilnd Culture Complex, 762 Fulton Street, 3rd Flc:>or

Meeting Re: Staff Check In •• Remote Confereni;e Call

Attendees: Mayor•s Office Staff

Downtown Streets Team Mission Ribbon Cutting •• 3100 17th Street, San Frand5co

5

P928

5/8/2019 2:49 PM

rl\/i~}-4. 2019 Continued

6;10 PM - 6:40 PM

PropG, Mayor (MYR)

The Association of Chinese Teachers SOth Anniversary G<ila ·-Scottish Rite Masonic Center, ZBSO 19th Avenue

6 5/8/2019 2:49 PM

P929

A Cyberattack Hobbles Atlanta, and Security Experts Shudder - The New York Times

u.s. I A Cyberattack Hobbl~s Atlanta, and Security Experts Shudder

· · · ~ljt-~{t\U-~:ork·~imes · ··· ·

A Cyberattack Hobbles tlanta, and Security xperts Shudder By Alan Blinder and Nicole Perlroth

March 27, 2018

Page 1of5

ATLANTA -The City of Atlanta's 81000 employees got the word on Tuesday that they had

been waiting for: r.t was O.K. to turn their computers on.

But as the city governmenf s desktops, hard drives and printers flickered back to life for

the first time in five days, residents still could not pay their traffic tickets or water bills

online, or report potholes or graffiti on a city website. Travelers at the world's busiest

airport still could not use the free Wi-Fi.

Atlanta's municipal government has been brought to its knees since Thursday morning by

a ransomware attack - one of the most sustained and consequential cyberattacks ever

mounted against a major American city.

The digital extortion aimed at Atlanta, which security experts have linked to a shadowy

· hacking crew known for its careful selection of targets, laid bare once again the

vulnerabiiities of governments as they rely .on computer networks for day-to-day

operations. In a ransomware attack, malicious software cripples a victim's computer or

network and blocks access to important data until a ransom is paid to unlock it.

"We are dealing with a hostage situation,'; Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms said this week.

The assault on Atlanta, the core of a metropolitan area of about .six m:iJiion people,

represented a serious escalation from other recent cyberattacks on American cities, like

one last year in Dallas where hackers gained the ability to set off tornado sirens in the

mkldle of the night.

https ://www.nytimes,com/2018/03/27 /us/ cyberattack-a~t,t"Qansomware.html 5/17/2019

A Cyberattack Hobbles Atlanta, and Security Experts Shudder· The New York Times Page 2of5

Part of what makes [email protected]~t5t~i;?);l1~~¥tb1Ule§9.tRh&ntRJ~R%!M'!x~s<shillYJ?als behind it: A group that locks Up its victims' Iil€S' With-eilCfy ptiOfi; temporarily Changes their filenames tO Hflfil

sorry11 and gives the victims _a week to pay up before the files are made permanently

inaccessible.

You have 3 free articles remaining. Subscribe to The Times

Threat researchers at Dell Secure Works, the Atlanta-based security firm helping the city

respond to the ransomware attack, identified the assailants as the SamSam hacking crew,

one of the 1nore prevalent and meticulous of the dozens of active ransomware attack

groups. The SamSam group is known for choosing targets that are the most likely to

accede to its high ransom demands - typically the Bitcoin equivalent of about $50,000 -

and for finding and locking up the victims' most valuable data.

In Atlanta, where officials said the ransom demand amounted to about $51,000, the group

left parts of the city's network tied in knots. Some major systems were not affected,

including those for 911 calls and control of wastewater treatment. But other arms of city

government have been scrambled for days.

The Atlanta Municipal Court has been unable to validate warrants. Police officers have

been writing reports by hand. The city has stopped taking employment applications.

Atlanta officials have disclosed few details about the episode or how it happened. They have urged vigilance an(,l tried to reassure employees and residents that their personal

information was not believed to have been compromised.

Dell Secure Works and Cisco Security, which are still working to restore the city>s systems,

declined to comment on the attacks) citing client confidentiality.

Ms. Bottoms, the mayor, has not said whether the city would pay the ransom.

The SamSam group has been one of the more successful ransomware rings, experts said. It is believed tb have extorted more than $1 million from some 30 target organizations in 2018

alone.

https://www .nytimes.com/2018/03/27 /us/cyberattack-a"'@ifansomware,html 5/17/2019

A Cyoerattack Hobbles Atlanta, and Security Experts Shudder - The New York Times Page 3qf5

It is not ideal to pay Uitr:P¥1A. ~JJn2&1cffl&Eh~~s~~ta,'\Y!'S'eYii&t~eM'?i\ictdWd that they c}m more . .

easily-affordthe $50,000 or so in-ra11som tharJ.the tirneai1d-cost ofrestoring theirlocked

data ruid compromised systems. In the past year, the group has taken to attacking bospitalsJ poUce departments and universities - targets with money but without the

lµxµry of going off"'.'linefor days or weeks for restoration work.

Investigators are not certain who the Sam.Sam hackers are. Judgin~ from the poor English

in the group.' s ransom notes; security researchers believe they are probably not native

English speakers. But they cannot say for $Ure whether SamSam is a single group of

cybercriminal$ or a loose hacking collective.

Rahsomware em~rged in Eastern Europe in 2009, when cybetcriminals started using

malicious code to lock up unsuspecting users'- machines and then demandhig 100 euros or

similar sums to unlock them again. Over the past decade, dozens of online cybercriminal

outfits -. and even some natiOn states, including North Korea and Russia - have taken up

si111Ha,.rtactics on a larger scale, inflicting digital paralysis-on victims and demanding

increasing amounts of money.

Cybersecurity experts estimate that criminals made more than $1 billion from ransomware

in 2016, according to the F.B.L Then, last May, came the largest rartsomware assault

recorded so far: North K9rean hackers went after tens of thousands of victims in inore

than 70 countries around the world, forcing Britain's public health system to reject

patients, paralyzing computers at Russia's Interior Ministry; at FedEx in the United

States, and at shipping lines and telecommunications companies across Europe.

A month later, Russian state hackers deployed similar ransomware to paralyze computers

in Ukraine on the eve of the country's independence day. That attack shut down automated

teller m~:lChines. in Kiev, froze government agencies and even forced workers at the

Chernobyl nuclear power plant to monitor radiation'levels rttan11~ly. Collateral damage

from that attack affected computers at Maersk, the Danish shipping conglomerate; at Merck, the Ameticaµ~based pharmaceutical giant; and even atbusinesses in Rus$ia.

Attempted ransomware attacks against local governments in the United States h~ve become unnervingly comm cm. A 2016 survey of chief information officers ·for jurisdictions

across th~ country found that obtaining ransom wa.s the mostconunon purpose of

c;yberattacks on a dcy or county government, accounting for nearly one-third of all attacks;

https://www.nytimes.cotn/2018/03/27/us/cyberattaok~a~gilan.s.omw(lre.html 5117/2019

A Cyberattack Hobbles Atlanta, and Security Experts Shudder - The New York Times Page.4 ofS

The survey, conducte1i.~Yi t:J1&JJ>1tfr&ritmn~fr~(a~g~J6YX~~ua@<Rt Association and the

University of tv1aryland, Baltimore County, also found that about one--quarter oflocal governments reported that they were experiencing attacks of one kind or another,

successful or not; at least as often as once an hour.

Yet less than half of the local governments surveyed said they had developed a formal

cybersecurity policy, and only 34 percent said they had a written strategy to recover from

breaches.

Experts said government officials needed to be more aggressive about preventive .

measures, like training employees to spot and sidestep "phishing" attempts meant to trick

them into opening the digital door for ransomware.

"It's going to be even more important that local governments look for the no-cost/low-cost,

but start considering cybersecurity on the same level as public safety," said David Jordan,

the chief information security officer for Arlington County, Va. "A smart local government

will have fire, police and cybersecurity at the same level."

Ms. Bottoms, who took office as mayor of Atlanta in January, acknowledged that shoring

up the city's digital defenses had not been a high priority before, but that now "it certainly

has gone to the front of the line."

"As elected officials, it's often quite easy for us to focus on the things that people see,

because at the end of the day; our residents are our customers," Ms. Bottoms said. "But we

have to really make sure that we ~ontinue to focus on the things that people can't see, and

digital infrastructure is very important."

Dur1

ing the ransomware attack, local leaders have sometimes been able to do little but .·

chuckle at a predicament that was forcing the city to turn the clock back decades.

Asked on Monday how long the city might be able to get by doing its business strictly with

ink and paper, Ms. Bottoms replied: ''It was a sustainable model until we got computer

systems. It worked for many years. And for some -of our younger employees, it will be a

nice exercise in good penmanship,"

Security researchers trying to combat ransomware have noticed a pattern inSamSarn's

attacks this year: Some of the biggest have occurred aroundthe 20th of the month.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/27/us/cyberattack.:ap~ansomware.htnil 5117/2019

A Cyberattack Hobbles Atlanta, and Secwity Experts Shudder - The New York Times Page 5of5

Allan Liska, a senior iJO~~llif~t~lf~fattn~§t1atA~aEtNP,t~J1}1WtK&~Ws13Rul1~ been tracking the gioup; said-in·ai1 interview that he believed that·SamSa1n·gains-access·toitsvictims1

·· · ·

systems and then waits for weeks before encrypting the victims' data. That delay, Mr.

Liska said, makes it harder for responders to figure out how the group was able to break in

- and easier for SamSam's hackers to strike twice.

The Colorado Department of Transportation was able to restore its systems on its own

after a SamSam attack, without paying SamSam a dime. But a week later, the hackers

struck the department again, with new, more potent ransomware.

"They are constantly learning from their mistakes, modifying their code and then

launching the next round of attacks," Mr. Liska said.

Alan Blinder reported from Atlanta, and Nicole Perlroth from Boulder, Colo.

A version of this article appears in print on March 27, 2018, on Page A14 of the New York edition with the headline: Atlanta Hobbled by Major Cyberattack That Mayor Calls 'a Hostage Situation'

[ READ 244 COMMENTS

https://www.nytirt1e;i.com/2018/03/27/us/cyberattack-a~~4ansoniware.html 5/17/2019

8 days after cyberattack., Baltimore's network still hobbled- The Washington Post

The Washington Post

National

8 days after cyberattack, Baltimore's network still hobbled

By David McFadden I AP

May 15 at 7:38 PM

Page 1of3

BALTIMORE -More than a week after a cyberattack hobbled Baltimore's computer network, city officials

said Wednesday they can't predict when its overall system will be up and running and continued to give only

the broadest outlines of the problem.

Baltimore's government rushed to take down most computer servers on May 7 after its network was hit by

ransomware. Functions like 911 and EMS dispatch systems weren't affected, officials say, but after eight days,

online payments, billing systems and email are still down. Finance department employees can only accept

checks or money orders.

No property transactions have been conducted since the attack, exasperating home sellers and real estate

professionals in the city of over 600,000. Most major title insurance companies have even prohibited their

agents from issuing policies for properties in Baltimore, according to the Greater Baltimore Board of

Realtors_.

Citing an ongoing criminal investigation; Baltimore's information technology boss Frank Johnson and other

city leaders said Wednesday they could provide no specifics about the attack from the ransomware variant

RobbinHood or realistically forecast when the various hobbled layers of the city's network would be back up.

"Anybody that's in this business will tell you that as you learn more those plans change by the minute. They

are incredibly fluid," said Johnson, stressing that city employees, expert consultants and others were working

"round the clock" to mend the breached network.

The FBI's cyber squad agents have been helping employees in Maryland's biggest city try to determine the

source and extent of the latest attack.

Johnson's tenure has now included two major breaches to the city's computer systems. This month's

problems come just over a year since another ransomware attack slammed Baltimore's 911 diSpatch system,

prompting a worrisome 17-hour shutdown of automated emergency dispatching. The March 2018 attack

required operating the critical 911 service in manual mode.

Johnson is one of the city's highest paid employees, earning $250,000 a year. That's more than the may0t,

the city's top prosecutor and the health commissioner are paid. This latest attack came about a week after the

firing of a city employee who, the inspector general said, bad downloaded thousands of sexually explicit

images onto his work computer during working hours.

While all municipalities are.menaced by malwan~, cybersecurity experts say organizations that fall victim to

such attacks often haven't done a thorough job of patching systems regularly.

https:/ /www. washington:post. corn/national/8-days-after-JU:r;&@ttack-baltimores-network-still-hobbled/201. .. 5117/2019

8 days after cyberattack, Baltimore's network still hobbled~ The Washington Post Page 2of3

Asher DeMetz;, lead security consultant for technology company Sungard Availability Services, sµggested that

eight days was a long time for a network to remain down.

"The City of Baltimore should have been prepared with a recovery Strategy and been able to recover within

much less time. That time would be dictated by a risk assessment guiding how long they can afford to be

down," DeMetz said in an email. "They should have been ready, especially after the previous attack, to recover

from ransomware."

City Solicitor Andre Davis said Baltimore was working "hand in glove" with the FBI, Microsoft officials, and

expert contractors that he and other officials declined to identify. Before TV news crews, Davis likened the

cyberattack to a brutal assault, a comparison that many residents can clearly understand in a city struggling

to bring down one of urban America's highest rates of violent crime.

"My preferred way of thinking about it is: The city network was viciously assaulted by a culprit and seriously

injured," Davis said. Baltimore's top lawyer portrayed the city network as an injured patient who has emerged

from the ICU and faces a '1ong course of physical therapy."

Baltimore authorities, who hope to prosecute the culprit behind the latest attack, said they were in close

contact with counterparts in Atlanta. Last year, a ransornware attack significantly disrupted city operations

there and caused millions of dollars in losses. In December, two lr!'lnian men already indicted in New Jersey ·

in connection with a broad cyberci:'ime and extortion scheme were indicted on federal charges in Georgia

related to that ransomware attack demanding payment for a decryption key.

It's not clear what culprits are demanding from Baltimore's City Hall.

''We're not going to address or discuss in any way the ransom demand," Davis said.

Follow McFadden on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ dmcfadd

Copyright 2019 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast,

rewritten or redistributed.

ml1~ lllaslJingtou :post

Others cover stories. We uncover them. Limited time offer: Get unlimited digital access for less than $i/week.

https://www .washingtonpost.com/national/8~days-afterp:-gr3~\'lttack-baltimores-networl0-still-hobbled/201... 5/17/2019

8 days after cyberattack, Baltimore's network still hobbled - The Washington Post

Get this offer

Send me this offer

Already a subscriber? Sign in

Page 3of3

https://www.washingtonpost.ccim/nationalJ8-days-after-cyptg~ck-baltimores-network-stilI:-hobbled/201.,, 5/17/2019

Leger, Cheryl (BOS)


Dear Anonymous,

Heckel, Hank (MYR) Wednesday, January 20, 2021 7:49 PM Anonymous; Leger, Cheryl (BOS) MayorSunshineRequests, MYR (MYR); SOTF, (BOS) RE: 19047 - Complia.nce Committee Hearing Response re File No. 19047 Compliance Hearing and Supplemental Production.pdf; December 9 Entry ics_Redacted.pdf; Exhibit A RE_ 19047 - Demand to produce recc:irds.pdf; Exhibit D 5th Supplemental Proclamation 3-23.pdf; Exhibit C - City Attorney .19044 Response 1.20.2021-signed.pdf; Exhibit B RE_ Single Breed Calendar ICS_iCalendar Entry - Immediate Disclosure Request.pdf

Please see the attached response and supplemental production relating to.your request for a Compliance Committee Hearing in SOTF File 19047, scheduled for January 26. We have no objection to going forward on that day and we hope that our response addresses your concerns.

Regards,

Hank Heckel Compliance Officer Office of the Mayor City and County of San Francisco

CC: Members of the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force

From: Anonymous <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 20214:57 PM To: Heckel, Hank {MYR) <[email protected]>; Leger, Cheryl {BOS) <[email protected]> Cc: MayorSunshineRequests, MYR (MYR) <[email protected]>; SOTF, (BOS) <[email protected]> Subject: RE: 19047 - Calendar redaction automation




Sincerely,

1 P938

Anonymous


On Wednesday, January 20th, 2021at4:52 PM, Heckel, Hank (MYR) <[email protected]> wrote:

Anonymous,


Regards,

Hank Heckel

Compliance Officer

Office of the Mayor


From: Anonymous <[email protected]>

Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 202111:34 AM

To: Heckel, Hank (MYR) <[email protected]>; Breed, Mayor London (MYR)

<[email protected]>; MayorSunshineRequests, MYR (MYR)

<[email protected]>; Elsbernd, Sean (MYR) <[email protected]>; Bruss, Andrea

(MYR) <[email protected]>; Leger, Cheryl (BOS) <[email protected]>; Sun, Selina (MYR) <[email protected]>; Lee, Mason (MYR) <[email protected]>

Cc: SOTF, (BOS) <[email protected]>; Lila La Hood <[email protected]>; Bruce Wolfe (Chair, SOTF,

SF) <[email protected]>

Subject: 19047 - Calendar redaction automation

p94J9

Ms. Gerull informs me she has the initial testing version of the software to automate metadata redactions and looking for departments to try it out.

You could send some of these ICS's from 19047 through her software and reply to me/SOTF before 5 pm with the redacted documents ...



------- Original Message -------


Same thing here Ms. Leger- please let me know if you have received anything from the City on 19047 since the ruling in Oct 2019. They're just ignoring me.






" No !CS calendars for this request were ever produced, let alone minimally redacted.

" While the Mayor did initially produce non-Prop G calendars - the ones Heckel lied to SOTF about not existing - they have also stopped producing non-Prop G calendars, and only produce the Prop G calendars. (As a reminder, the Mayor has two separate Outlook calendars, both used for business purpose - called "Calendar, Mayor" and "PropG, Mayor")


Attached is an example of DT's compliant ICS calendars -note how almost nothing is actually an IT risk (of the 6 words redacted in the entire record, OT later agreed in writing that 2 of them should not be redacted -leaving a total of 4 words for Respondents to redact).

Respondents will plead with you for yet more time so that they and Herrera can continue to indefinitely scheme. Reject their request. It is completely unreasonable to produce no new records in 440 days. As your members pointed out in the original hearing, if Respondents had given some !CS record redacted how they wished, then SOTF could judge it. But they didn't then and still haven't.

NOTE: Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature {signature.asc attachment}, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential

P941

information, as I intend that these communications with the government all be disclosable public records.

Sincerely,

Anonymous

Office of the Mayor City & County of San Francisco

VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL

January 20, 2020

Re: File 19047, Anonymous v. Mayor's Office

Dear Anonymous,

On behalf of the Office of the Mayor, this is in response to your request for a Compliance Committee Hearing in SOTF File 1904 7 and should be included in that file. This further responds to the issues concerning metadata production in SOTF File 1904 7 and provides a supplemental production consistent with the requirements of the Order of Determination in that matter.

Background

As you know, the issue of metadata production is complex and novel and we have been engaged consistently with you over a long period regarding your requests for this information and our reservations regarding the cyber-security risks to the City's networks and IT infrastructure posed by production of this information. You have often recognized that, fodeed, certain categories of metadata information may pose a cyber-security risk and may be rightfully withheld as exempt. The challenge as we have discussed with you extensively is the ability to reliably provide metadata while redacting information that poses a cyber risk or even is exempt for more traditional grounds such as privilege or health privacy but may be hidden in metadata.

Most City employees responsible for answering public records requests are not computer programmers or IT experts and have very little ability to read or understand metadata let alone flag sensitive bits of information embedded therein. Thus, the City's Department of Technology ("DT") has spearheaded an effort to work with you in developing a pilot program that can provide for the safe production of metadata. DT has conducted considerable work over many months during the COVID-19 pandemic; while simultaneously overseeing the transfer of vast swaths of City operations to a remote format. Other City departments, including this one, rely on their IT professionals and have looked to DT for guidance on this issue.

Simultaneously, this department looked to the City Attorney's Office for guidance on a novel category of information the production of which is not explicitly mentioned in the Sunshine Ordinance.

Thus, the Office of the Mayor has defened consistently to DT and the City Attorney's Office on the appropriate way to respond to your requests while cautiously implementing any guidelines and methods for the safe and efficient production of this information. That process has continued to evolve with just today DT informing us that it had a test version of a tool to process and redact metadata. This is after months of deliberations between you and DT over a proposed "green list" of safe metadata categories, the scope of which was only apparently resolved in the last two weeks.

1 Dr. Carlton B. Gooclletl Place, Roc'im 200, San Francisco, California 94102-4641 (415) 554-614 l

P943

As we informed you continuously throughout that process, we were awaiting the results of DT and the City Attorney's investigation so that we could respond in a responsible manner to your requests and to this file. We informed you of our position again as recently as December 21. See Exhibit A. That process is still not entirely complete as the guidelines from DT could evolve further and the redaction tool is neither completely proven nor widely available to departments.

However, the process has advanced to the point where we can happily report that we are able to produce certain categories of metadata at least for your .ics calendar requests at issue here.

Supplemental Production

Therefore, please see attached metadata information from the Mayor's calendar. This is specifically in response to your more recent related request of December 17, 2020 seeking the earliest calendar entry in .ics format with the associated metadata. Exhibit B. We were able to provide this production in close consultation with DT. The contents of certain fields are redacted due to the security risk to computer networks, proprietary and licensed systems, and individual users' accounts, per Cal. Gov. Code§ 6253.9(f) and 6254.19, as well as on the basis of the official information privilege of Cal. Evid. Code 1040, and the public interest balancing test of Gov. Code 6255.

We are still processing the original calendar records sought in your original request at issue in 1904 7. We were only able to submit those files for use in the DT redaction tool today. We will provide those in supplement when the processing is complete.

We do not concede that all metadata must be produced for all requests going forward as novel issues and burdens may yet still arise. We have reviewed the City Attorney's Office's letter to SOTF on this issue and we incorporate that office's position here. Exhibit C. Specifically, we reserve our potential objections to future instances of metadata production based on Cal. Gov. Code§ 6253.9(f) and 6254.19. We also believe that in some instances, the public interest balancing test, reinstated by the Fifth Supplemental Proclamation Declaring a Local Emergency (Exhibit D), may be applicable where the burden and risk of disclosing metadata may outWeigh the public interest in disclosure of such information. This is an appropriate use of the test in light of the limitations on City personnel and resources during the COVID-19 pandemic and the heightened need for cyber-security. Further, we maintain that certain types of metadata in certain instances may not rise to the definition of a public record - "any writing containing information relating to the conduct of the public's business prepared, owned, used, or retained by any state or local agency" - set forth in Gov. Code 6252(e), as the information is generally not created by any City personnel nor even intelligible to most such employees and is instead · machine generated code that does not always relate to the conduct of the public business.

Nevertheless, we have agreed to provide the .ics metadata requested in this file and in follow-up requests and we submit that no further action before SOTF is required. We will work with you to address new metadata issues as they arise.

P944

Regards,

Isl Hank Heckel

Hank: Heckel Compliance Officer Office of the Mayor City and County of San Francisco


P945

BEGIN:VCALENDAR PRODID:-//Microsoft Corporation//Outlook 16.0 MIMEDIR//EN VERSION:2.0 METHOD:PUBLISH X-MS-OLK-FORCEINSPECTOROPEN:-BEGIN:VTIMEZONE TZID:Pacific Standard Time BEGIN:STANDARD DTSTART:16011104T020000 RRULE:FREQ=YEARLY;BYDAY=1SU;BYMONTH=11 TZOFFSETFROM:-0700 TZOFFSETT0:-0800 END:STANDARD BEGIN: DAYLIGHT DTSTART:16010311T020000 RRULE:FREQ=YEARLY;BYDAY=2SU;BYMONTH=3 TZOFFSETFROM:-0800 TZOFFSETT0:-0700 END: DAYLIGHT END:VTIMEZONE BEGIN:VEVENT CLASS: PUBLIC CREATED:20210120T232243Z DESCRIPTION:\n DTEND;TZID="Pacific Standard Time":20201209T130000 DTSTAMP:20210120T231901Z DTSTART;TZID="Pacific Standard Time":20201209T124500 LAST-MODIFIED:20210120T232243Z LOCATION:Via Zoom PRIORITY:S SEQUENCE:0 SUMMARY;LANGUAGE=en-us:Press Conference Re: COVID-19 Update TRANSP:J I . UID:040000008200E00074C5B7101A82E00800000000A06F0CC743CED601000000000000000

010000000E8576A972EB294468A082DDC0FA1AD94 X-ALT-DESC;FMTTYPE=text/html:<html xmlns:v="vrn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml"

xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office'' xmlns:w="urn:schemas-mic rosoft-com:office:word" x~lns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/ 12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-htm140"><head><meta name=Progid c ontent=Word.Document><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15"~<met

a name=Originator content=''Microsoft Word 15"><link rel=File-List href="ci d:[email protected]"><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>\n<o:OfficeDocum entSettings>\n<o:AllowPNG/>\n</o:OfficeDocumentSettings>\n</xml><![endif]-

. -><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>\n<w:WordDocument>\n<w:TrackMoves/>\n<w:TrackFor matting/>\n<w:EnvelopeVis/>\n<w:Punctuationl<erning/>\n<w:ValidateAgainstsc hemas/>\n<w:SaveifXMLinvalid>false</w:SaveifXMLinvalid>\n<w:IgnoreMixedCon tent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent>\n<w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:A lwaysShowPlaceholderText>\n<w:DoNotPromoteQF/>\n<w:LidThemeOther>EN-US</w: LidThemeOther>\n<w:LidThemeAsian>X-NONE</w:LidThemeAsian>\n<w:LidThemeComp lexScript>X-NONE</w:LidThemeComplexScript>\n<w:Compatibility>\n<w:BreakWra

P946

ppedTables/>\n<w:SnapToGridinCell/>\n<w:WrapTextWithPunct/>\n<w:UseAsianBr eakRules/>\n<w:DontGrowAutofit/>\n<w:SplitPgBreakAndParaMark/>\n<w:EnableO penTypeKerning/>\n<w:DontFlipMirrorindents/>\n<w:OverrideTableStyleHps/>\n </w:Compatibility>\n<m:mathPr>\n<m:mathFont m:val="Cambria Math"/>\n<m:brk Bin m:val="before"/>\n<m:brkBinSub m:val="&#45\;-"/>\n<m:smal1Frac m:val=" off"/>\n<m:dispDef/>\n<m:lMargin m:val="0"/>\n<m:rMargin m:val="0"/>\n<m:d efJc m:val="centerGroup"/>\n<m:wrapindent m:val="1440''/>\n<m:intLim ~:val= "subSup''/>\n<m:naryLim m:val="undOvr"/>\n</m:mathPr></w:WordDocument>\n</x ml><l[endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>\n<w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="f alse" DefUnhideWhenUsed="false" DefSemiHidden="false" DefQFormat="false" D efPriority="99" LatentStyleCount="375''>\n<w:LsdException Locked="false" Pr iority="0" QFormat="true" Name="Normal"/>\n<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 1"/>\n<w:LsdException Locked="fa lse" Priority="9" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true" QFormat="true" N ame="heading 2"/>\n<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden= "true" UnhideWhenUsed="true" QFormat="true" Name="heading 3."/>\n<w: LsdExce ption Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden=''true" UnhideWhenUsed="true" QFormat="true" Name="heading 4"/>\n<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority ="9" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true" QFormat="true" Name="heading 5"/>\n<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="true'' Unhide WhenUsed=''true" QFormat="true" Name="heading 6"/>\n<w:LsdException Locked= "false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true" QFormat="true '' Name="heading 7"/>\n<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidd en="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true" QFormat=''true" Name="heading 8"/>\n<w:LsdE xception Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="tru e" QFormat="true" Name="heading 9"/>\n<w;LsdException Locked="false" SemiH idden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="index 1"/>\n<w:LsdException Locke d="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="index 2"/>\n<w:Lsd Exception Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name=''ind ex 3"/>\n<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed=" true" Name="index 4"/>\n<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" U nhideWhenUsed="true" Name="index 5"/>\n<w:LsdException Locked="false" Semi Hidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="index 6"/>\n<w:LsdException Lock ed="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="index 7"/>\n<w:Ls dException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="in dex 8''/>\n<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed= "true" Name="index 9"/>\n<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Semi Hidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="toc 1"/>\n<w:LsdException Locked ="false" Priority="39" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="toc 2 "/>\n<w: LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" SemiHidden=''true" Unhide WhenUsed="true" Name="toc 3"/>\n<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="3 9" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="toc 4"/>\n<w:LsdException

Locked="false" Priority="39" SemiHidden="true'' UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name ="toe 5"/>\n<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" SemiHidden="true'' UnhideWhenUsed="true" Narne="toc 6"/>\n<w:LsdException Locked="false" Prio

rity="39" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="toc 7"/>\n<w:LsdEx ception Locked="false" Priority="39" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="tru e" Name="toc 8"/>\n<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" SemiHidden ="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="toc 9''/>\n<w:LsdException Locked="fals e" SerniHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="Normal Indent"/>\n<w:LsdE

P947

xception Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true'' Name="foot note text''/>\n<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenU sed="true" Name="annotation text"/>\n<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHi dden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true'' Name="header"/>\n<w:LsdException Locked= "false'' SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="footer"/>\n<w:LsdExc eption Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="index heading"/> \n<w: LsdException Locked="false" Priority=" 35'' SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true" QFormat="true" Name="caption"/>\n<w:LsdException Lo

cked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="table of figure s"/>\n<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed=''tru e" Name="envelope address"/>\n<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden=''t rue" UnhideWhenUsed=''true" Name="envelope return"/>\n<w:LsdException Locke d="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="footnote reference "/>\n<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true " Name="annotation reference"/>\n<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden ="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="line number"/>\n<w:LsdException Locked ="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="page number"/>\n<w: LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name=" endnote reference"/>\n<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHid~en="true" Unh ideWhenUsed="true" Name="endnote text"/>\n<w:LsdException Locked="false" S emiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="table of authorities"/>\n<w:L sdException Locked="false" SemiHidden=''true" UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="m acro"/>\n<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed=" true" Name="toa heading"/>\n<w:LsdException Locked=''false" SemiHidden="tru e" UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="List"/>\n<w:LsdException Locked="false" Sem iHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="List Bullet"/>\n<w:LsdException

Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="List Number" />\n<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="List 2"/>\n<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideW

henUsed="true" Name="List 3"/>\n<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden= "true" UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="List 4"/>\n<w:LsdException Locked="fals e" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="List 5"/>\n<w:LsdExceptio n Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="List Bullet 2"/>\n<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="tr

ue" Name="List Bullet 3"/>\n<w:LsdException Locked=''false" SemiHidden="tru e'' UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="List Bullet 4"/>\n<w:LsdException Locked="f alse" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="List Bullet 5"/>\n<w:L sdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name=''L ist Number 2"/>\n<w:LsdException Locked="false'' SemiHidden="true" UnhideWh enUsed="true" Name='' List Number 3" /> \n<w: LsdException Locked="false" SemiH idden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="List Number 4"/>\n<w:LsdException

Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="List Number 5"/>\n<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="10" QFormat="true" Name="Ti tle"/>\n<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="t rue'.' Name="Closing"/>\n<w: LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" Un hideWhenUsed="true" Name="Signature''/>\n<w:LsdException Locked="false" Pri ority="1" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="Default Paragraph Font''/>\n<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed=" true" Name="Body Text"/>\n<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true"

UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="Body Text Indent"/>\n<w:LsdException Locked="

P948

false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="List Continue"/>\n<w: LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name=" List Continue 2"/>\n<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" Unhid eWhenUsed="true" Name="List Continue 3"/>\n<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="List Continue 4"/>\n<w:LsdEx ception Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="List Continue 5"/>\n<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhen Used="true" Name=" Message Header''/>\n<w: LsdException Locked="false" Priori ty="11" QFormat="true" Name="Subtitle"/>\n<w:LsdException Locked="false" s emiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="Salutation"/>\n<w:LsdExceptio n Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="Date"/>\n<w :LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name= "Body Text First Indent"/>\n<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden=''tru e" UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="Body Text First Indent 2"/>\n<w:LsdExceptio n Locked="false" SemiHidden=''true" UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="Note Headin g"/>\n<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed=''tru e" Name="Body Text 2"/>\n<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="Body Text 3"/>\n<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="Body Text Indent 2"/>\n<w:L

sdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="B ody Text Indent 3"/>\n<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" Unh ideWhenUsed="true" Name="Block Text"/>\n<w:LsdException Locked="false" Sem iHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name=''Hyperlink"/>\n<w:LsdException L ocked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name=''FollowedHyperl ink"/>\n<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="22" QFormat="true" Name=" Strorig"/>\n<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="20" QFormat="true" Nam e="Emphasis"/>\n<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhe nUsed="true" Name="Document Map"/>\n<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHid den="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="Plain Text"/>\n<w:LsdException Lock ed="false" SemiHidden="true" UhhideWhenUsed="true" Name=''E-mail Signature" />\n<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden=''true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"

Name="HTML Top of Form"/>\n<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="tru e" UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="HTML Bottom of Form"/>\n<w:LsdException Loe ked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="Normal (Web)"/>\ n<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true" Na me="HTML Acronym"/>\n<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" Unhi deWhenUsed="true" Name="HTML Address"/>\n<w:LsdException Locked="false" Se miHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="HTML Cite"/>\n<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="HTML Code"/>\ n<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true" Na me="HTML Definition"/>\n<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" u nhideWhenUsed="true" Name="HTML Keyboard"/>\n<w:LsdException Locked="false " SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="HTML Preformatted"/>\n<w:L sdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="H TML Sample"/>\n<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhen Used="true" Name="HTML Typewriter"/>\n<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiH idden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="HTML Variable"/>\n<w:LsdException

Locked="false'' SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="Normal Table . "/>\n<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true " Name="annotation subject"/>\n<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="

P949

true" UnhideWhenU.sed="true" Name="No List"/> \n<w: LsdException Locked="fals e" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="Outline List 1"/>\n<w:Lsd Exception Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="Out line List 2"/>\n<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden=''true" UnhideWhe nUsed="true" Name="Outline List 3''/>\n<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiH idden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="Table Simple 1"/>\n<w:LsdExceptio n Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="Table Simpl e 2"/>\n<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="t rue'' Name="Table Simple 3"/>\n<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="t rue" UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="Table Classic 1"/>\n<w:LsdException Locke d="false" SemiHidcjen="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="Table Classic 2"/> \n<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true'' UnhideWhenUsed="true" N ame="Table Classic 3"/>\n<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="Table Classic 4"/>\n<w:LsdException Locked=''fa lse" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="Table Colorful 1"/>\n<w :LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name= "Table Colorful 2"/>\n<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true'' Unh ideWhenUsed="true" Name="Table Colorful 3"/>\n<w:LsdException Locked="fals e" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="Table Columns 1''/>\n<w:Ls dException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="Ta ble Columns 2"/>\n<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideW henUsed="true" Name="Table Columns 3"/>\n<w:LsdException Locked=''false" Se miHidden="true'' UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="Table Columns 4"/>\n<w:LsdExce ption Locked~"false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name=''Table c olumns 5"/>\n<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUs ed="true" Name=''Table Grid 1~/>\n<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden =."true" UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="Table Grid 2"/>\n<w: LsdException Locke d="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed=''true" Name="Table Grid 3"/>\n< w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name ="Table Grid 4''/>\n<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" Unhide WhenUsed="true" Name="Table Grid 5"/>\n<w:LsdExceptio~ Locked="false" Semi Hidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="Table Grid 6"/>\n<w:LsdException

Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="Table Grid 7 "/>\n<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true " Name="Table Grid 8"/>\n<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="Table List 1"/>\n<w:LsdException Locked="false " SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="Table List 2"/>\n<w:LsdExc eption Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="Table List 3"/>\n<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed ="true" Name="Table List 4"/>\n<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden=" true'' UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="Table List 5"/>\n<w:LsdException Locked= "false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="Table List 6"/>\n<w: LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name=" Table List 7"/>\n<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true'' UnhideWh enUsed="true'' Name="Table List 8"/>\n<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHi dden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="Table 30 effects 1"/>\n<w:LsdExcep tion Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="Table 30 effects 2"/>\n<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhen

Used="true" Name="Table 30 effects 3"/>\n<w:LsdException Locked="false" Se miHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="Table Contemporary"/>\n<w:LsdE

P950

xception Locked="false" SerniHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true" Narne="Tabl e Elegant"/>\n<w:LsdException Locked= 11 false" SerniHidden="true" UnhideWhenU sed="true" Narne="Table Professional"/> \n<w:. LsdException Locked="false" Sern iHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true" Narne="Table Subtle 1"/>\n<w:LsdExcept ion Locked="false" SerniHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true" Narne="Table Sub tle 2"/>\n<w:LsdException Locked="false" SerniHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed= "true" Narne="Table Web 1"/>\n<w:LsdException Locked="false" SerniHidden="tr ue" UnhideWhenUsed="true" Narne="Table Web 2"/>\n<w:LsdException Locked="fa lse" SerniHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true" Narne="Table Web 3"/>\n<w:LsdE xception Locked="false" SerniHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true" Narne="Ball oon Text"/>\n<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Narne="Table Grid "/>\n<w:LsdException Locked="false" SerniHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true 11 Narne="Table Therne"/>\n<w:LsdException Locked="false" SerniHidden="true" N arne="Placeholder Text"/>\n<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="1" QFor rnat="true" Narne="No Spacing"/>\n<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="6 0" Narne="Light Shading"/>\n<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" Na rne="Light List"/>\n<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" Narne="Ligh t Grid"/>\n<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" Narne="Mediurn Shadi ng 1"/>\n<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" Narne="Mediurn Shading 2"/>\n<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" Narne="Mediurn List 1"/>

\n<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" Narne="Mediurn List 2"/>\n<w: LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" Narne="Mediurn Grid 1"/>\n<w:LsdEx ception Locked="false" Priority="68" Narne="Mediurn Grid 2"/>\n<w:LsdExcepti on Locked="false" Priority="69" Narne="Mediurn Grid 3"/>\n<w:LsdException Lo cked="false" Priority="70" Narne="Dark List"/>\n<w:LsdException Locked= 11 fal se" Priority="71" Narne="Colorful Shading"/>\n<w:LsdException Locked="false " Priority="72" Narne="Colorful List"/>\n<w:LsdException Locked="false" Pri ority="73" Narne="Colorful Grid"/>\n<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority =11 60" Narne="Light Shading Accent 1"/>\n<w:LsdException Locked="false" Prio rity="61" Narne="Light List Accent 1"/>\n<w:LsdException Locked="false 11 Pri ority="62" Narne="Light Grid Accent 1"/>\n<w:LsdException Locked="false" Pr iority="63" Narne="Mediurn Shading 1 Accent 1"/>\n<w:LsdException Locked="fa lse" Priority="64" Narne="Mediurn Shading 2 Accent 1"/>\n<w:LsdException Loe ked="false" Priority="65" Narne="Mediurn List 1 Accent 1"/>\n<w:LsdException

Locked="false" SerniHidden="true 11 Narne="Revision"/>\n<w:LsdException Locke d="false" Priority="34" QForrnat="true" Narne="List Paragraph"/>\n<w:LsdExce ption Locked="false" Priority="29" QForrnat="true" Narne= 11 Quote"/>\n<w:LsdEx ception Locked="false" Priority="30" QForrnat="true" Narne="Intense Quote"/> \n<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" Narne="Mediurn List 2 Accent 1"/>\n<w:LsdException Locked="false" Pribrity="67" Narne="Mediurn Grid 1 Ace ent 1"/>\n<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" Narne= 11 Mediurn Grid 2 Accent 1"/>\n<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" Narne="Mediurn Gr

id 3 Accent 1"/>\n<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" Narne="Dark List Accent 1"/>\n<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" Narne="Color ful Shading Accent 1"/>\n<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" Name ="Colorful List Accent 1"/>\n<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" Narne="Colorful Grid Accent 1"/>\n<w:LsdException Locked= 11 false" Priority=" 60" Narne="Light Shading Accent 2"/>\n<w:LsdException Locked="false 11 Priori ty="61" Narne="Light List Accent 2"/>\n<w:LsdException Locked="false" Prior ity="62" Name="Light Grid Accent 2"/>\n<w:LsdException Locked="false" Prio

P951

rity="63" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 2"/>\n<w:LsdException Locked="fals e" Priority="64" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 2"/>\n<w:LsdException Locke d="false" Priority="65" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 2"/>\n<w:LsdException L ocked="false" Priority="66" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 2"/>\n<w:LsdExcepti on Locked="false" Priority="67" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 2"/>\n<w:LsdExc eption Locked="false" Priority="68" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 2"/>\n<w:Ls dException Locked="false" Priority="69" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 2"/>\n< w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" Name=''Dark List Accent 2"/>\n< w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 2"/>\n<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" Name="Colorful List Ace ent 2"/>\n<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 2"/>\n<w:LsdException Locked=''false" Priority="60" Name="Light Sha

ding Accent 3"/>\n<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" Name="Light List Accent 3"/>\n<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" Name=''Ligh

t Grid Accent 3"/>\n<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" Name="Med ium Shading 1 Accent 3"/>\n<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" Na me="Medium Shading 2 Accent 3"/>\n<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority= "65'' Name="Medium List 1 Accent 3"/>\n<w:LsdException Locked="false" Prior ity="66" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 3"/>\n<w:LsdException Locked="false" P riority="67" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 3"/>\n<w:LsdException Locked="fals e" Priority="68" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 3"/>\n<w:LsdException Locked=" false" Priority="69" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 3"/>\n<w:LsdException Lock ed="false" Priority="70" Name="Dark List Accent 3"/>\n<w:LsdException Lock ed="false" Priority="71" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 3"/>\n<w:LsdExcepti on Locked="false" Priority="72" Name="Colorful List Accent 3"/>\n<w:LsdExc eption Locked="false" Priority="73" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 3"/>\n<w:Ls dException Locked="false" Priority="60" Name="Light Shading Accent 4"/>\n< w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" Name="Light List Accent 4"/>\n <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62'' Name="Light Grid Accent 4"/>\ n<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" Name=''Medium Shading 1 Accen t 4"/>\n<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" Name="Medium. Shading 2 Accent 4''/>\n<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" Name="Medium L ist 1 Accent 4"/>\n<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" Name="Medi um List 2 Accent 4"/>\n<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" Name="· Medium Grid 1 Accent 4"/>\n<w:LsdException Locked~"false" Priority=''68" Na me="Medium Grid 2 Accent 4"/>\n<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69 " Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 4"/>\n<w:LsdException Locked="false'' Priority ="70" Name="Dark List Accent 4"/>\n<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority ="71'' Name="Colorful Shading Accent 4"/>\n<w:LsdException Locked="false" P riority="72" Name="Colorful List Accent 4"/>\n<w:LsdException Locked="fals e" Priority="73" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 4"/>\n<w:LsdException Locked=" false" Priority="60" Name="Light Shading Accent 5"/>\n<w:LsdException Lock ed=''false" Priority="61" Name="Light List Accent 5"/>\n<w:LsdException Loe ked="false" Priority="62" Name="Light Grid Accent 5"/>\n<w:LsdException Lo cked="false" Priority="63" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 5"/>\n<w:LsdExcep tion Locked="false" Priority="64" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 5"/>\n<w:L sdException Locked="false" Priority=''65" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 5"/>\n <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 5" />\n<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accen t 5"/>\n<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" Name="Medium Grid 2 A

P952

ccent 5"/>\n<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 5"/>\n<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70'' Name="Dark Li

st Accent 5"/>\n<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71'' Name="Colorfu 1 Shading Accent 5"/>\n<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" Name=" Colorful List Accent 5"/>\n<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" Na me="Colorful Grid Accent 5''/>\n<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60 " Name=''Light Shading Accent 6"/>\n<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority ="61" Name="Light List Accent 6"/>\n<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priorit y="62" Name=''Light Grid Accent 6"/>\n<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priori ty="63" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 6"/>\n<w:LsdException Locked="false"

Priority="64" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 6"/>\n<w:LsdException Locked= "false" Priority="65" Name~''Medium List 1 Accent 6"/>\n<w:LsdException Loe ked="false" Priority="66" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 6"/>\n<w:LsdException

Locked="false" Priority="67" Name="Medium Grid l Accent 6''/>\n<w:LsdExcep tion Locked="false" Priority="68" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 6"/>\n<w:LsdE xception locked="false" Priority="69" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 6''/>\n<w: LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" Name="Dark List Accent 6"/>\n<w: LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71'' Name="Colorful Shading Accent 6 11

/>\n<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72'' Name="Colorful List Accen t 6"/>\n<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" Name="Colorful Grid A ccent 6"/>\n<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="19" QFormat="true" Na me="Subtle Emphasis"/>\n<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="21" QForm at="true" Name="Intense Emphasis"/>\n<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priori ty="31" QFormat="true" Name="Subtle Reference"/>\n<w:LsdException Locked=" false" Priority="32" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Reference"/>\n<w:LsdExce ption Locked="false" Priority="33" QFormat="true" Name="Book Title''/>\n<w: LsdException Locked="false" Priority="37" SemiHidden=''true" UnhideWhenUsed ="true" Name="Bibliography"/>\n<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39 " SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true" QFormat="true" Name="TOC Heading "/>\n<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority=''41" Name="Plain Table 1"/>\n <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="42" Name="Plain Table 2"/>\n<w:Ls dException Locked="false" Priority="43" Name="Plain Table 3"/>\n<w:LsdExce ption Locked="false" Priority="44" Name="Plain Table 4"/>\n<w:LsdException

Locked="false" Priority="45" Name="Plain Table 5"/>\n<w:LsdException Lock ed="false" Priority=''40" Name="Grid Table Light"/>\n<w:Ls~Exception Locked ="false" Priority="46" Name="Grid Table 1 Light''/>\n<w:LsdException Locked ="false" Priority="47" Name="Grid Table 2"/>\n<w:LsdException Locked="fals e" Priority=''48" Name="Grid Table 3"/>\n<w:LsdException Locked="false" Pri ority="49" Name="Grid Table 4"/>\n<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority= "50" Name="Grid Table 5 Dark"/>\n<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority=" 51" Name="Grid Table 6 Colorful"/>\n<w:LsdException Locked=''false" Priorit y="52" Name="Grid Table 7 Colorful"/>\n<w:LsdException Locked="false" Prio rity="46" Name="Grid Table 1 Light Accent 1"/>\n<w:LsdException Locked=''fa lse" Priority;"47'' Name="Grid Table 2 Accent 1"/>\n<w:LsdException Locked= "false" Priority="48" Name="Grid Table 3 Accent 1"/>\n<w:LsdException Lock ed="false" Priority="49" Name="Grid Table 4 Accent 1"/>\n<w:LsdException L ocked="false" Priority="50" Name="Grid Table 5 Dark Accent 1"/>\n<w:LsdExc eption Locked="false" Priority="51" Name="Grid Table 6 Colorful Accent 1"/ >\n<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52" Name="Grid Table 7 Colorfu 1 Accent 1"/>\n<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46" Name="Grid Tab

P953

le 1 Light Accent 2"/>\n<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name= "Grid Table 2 Accent 2"/>\n<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48'' Na me="Grid Table 3 Accent 2"/>\n<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49"

Name="Grid Table 4 Accent 2"/>\n<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority=" 50'' Name="Grid Table 5 Dark Accent 2"/>\n<w:LsdException Locked="false" Pr iority="51" Name="Grid Table 6 Colorful Accent 2''/>\n<w:LsdException Locke d~"false'' Priority="52" Name="Grid Table 7 Colorful Acc~nt 2"/>\n<w:LsdExc eption Locked="false" Priority="46" Name="Grid Table 1 Light Accent 3"/>\n <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="Grid Table 2 Accent 3"/ >\n<w:LsdException Locked=''false" Priority="48" Name="Grid Table 3 Accent 3"/>\n<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="Grid Table 4 Acee nt 3"/>\n<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="Grid Table 5 D ark Accent 3''/>\n<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51" Name="Grid T able 6 Colorful Accent 3"/>\n<w:LsdException Locked="fals~" Priority="52" Name=''Grid Table 7 Colorful Accent 3"/>\n<w:LsdException Locked="false" Pr iority="46'' Name="Grid Table 1 Light Accent 4"/>\n<w:LsdException Locked=" false" Priority="47" Name="Grid Table 2 Accent 4"/>\n<w:LsdException Locke d="false" Priority="48" Name="Grid Table 3 Accent 4"/>\n<w:LsdException Lo cked="false" Priority="49" Name=''Grid T~ble 4 Accent 4"/>\n<w:LsdException

Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="Grid Table 5 Dark Accent 4"/>\n<w:LsdE xception Locked="false" Priority="51" Name="Grid Table 6 Colorful Accent 4 "/>\n<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52" Name="Grid Table 7 Color ful Accent 4"/>\n<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46" Name="Grid T able 1 Light Accent 5"/>\n<w:·LsdException Locked=''false" Priority="47" Nam e="Grid Table 2 Accent 5"/>\n<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="Grid Table 3 Accent 5"/>\n<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="4 9" Name="Grid Table 4 Accent 5"/>\n<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority ="50'' Name="Grid Table 5 Dark Accent 5"/>\n<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51" Name="Grid Table 6 Colorful Accent 5"/>\n<w:LsdException Loe ked="false" Priority="52'' Name="Grid Table 7 Colorful Accent 5"/>\n<w:LsdE xception Locked="false" Priority="46" Name="Grid Table 1 Light Accent 6''/> \n<w:LsdException Locked=''false" Priority="47" Name="Grid Table 2 Accent 6 "/>\n<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="Grid Table 3 Accen t 6"/>\n<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="Grid Table 4 Ac cent 6''/>\n<w:LsdEx~eption .Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="Grid Table 5 Dark Accent 6"/>\n<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51" Name="Grid Table 6 Colorful Accent 6"/>\n<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52

" Name="Grid Table 7 Colorful Accent 6"/>\n<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46" Name="List Table 1 Light"/>\n<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="List Table 2"/>\n<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priori ty="48" Name="List Table 3"/>\n<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49 " Name="List Table 4"/>\n<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name ="List Table 5 Dark"/>\n<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51" Name= "List Table 6 Colorful"/>\n<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52" Na me="List Table 7 Colorful"/>\n<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"

Name="List Table 1 Light Accent 1"/>\n<w:LsdException Locked="false" Prio rity="47" Name="List Table 2 Accent 1"/>\n<w:LsdException Locked="false" P riority="48" Name="List Table 3 Accent 1"/>\n<w:LsdException Locked="false " Priority="49" Name="List Table 4 Accent 1"/>\n<w:LsdException Locked="fa lse" Priority="50" Name="List Table 5 Dark Accent 1"/>\n<w:LsdException Lo

P954

cked="false" Priority="51" Name="List Table 6 Colorful Accent 1"/>\n<w:Lsd Exception Locked="false" Priority="52" Name="List Table 7 Colorful Accent 1"/>\n<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46" Name="List Table 1 Ligh t Accent 2"/>\n<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="List Tab le 2 Accent 2"/>\n<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="List Table 3 Accent 2"/>\n<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="Li st Table 4 Accent 2"/>\n<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name= "List Table 5 Dark Accent'2"/>\n<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="5 1" Name="List Table 6 Colorful Accent 2"/>\n<w:LsdException Locked=''false"

Priority="52" Name="List Table 7 Colorful Accent 2"/>\n<w:LsdException Lo cked="false" Priority="46" Name="List Table 1 Light Accent 3"/>\n<w:LsdExc eption Locked="false" Priority=''47" Name="List Table 2 Accent 3"/>\n<w:Lsd Exception Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="List Table 3 Accent 3"/>\n<w: LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="List Table 4 Accent 3"/>\n <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="List Table 5 Dark Accen t 3"/>\n<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51" Name="List Table 6 Co lorfu1 Accent 3"/>\n<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52" Name="Lis t Table 7 Colorful Accent 3"/>\n<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="4 6" Name="List Table 1 Light Accent 4"/>\n<w:LsdException Locked="false" Pr iority="47" Name="List Table 2 Accent 4"/>\n<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="List Table 3 Accent 4"/>\n<w:LsdException Locked="fal

se" Priority="49" Name="List Table 4 Accent 4"/>\n<w:LsdException Locked=" false" Priority="50" Name=''List Table 5 Dark Accent 4"/>\n<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51" Name="List Table 6 Colorful Accent 4"/>\n<w:L sdException Locked="false" Priority="52" Name=''List Table 7 Colorful Accen t 4"/>\n<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46" Name="List Table 1 Li ght Accent 5"/>\n<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="List T able 2 Accent 5"/>\n<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Na~e=''Lis t Table 3 Accent 5"/>\n<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name=" List T.able 4 Accent 5"/>\n<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Nam e="List Table 5 Dark Accent 5"/>\n<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority= "51" Name="List Table 6 Colorful Accent 5''/>\n<w:LsdException Locked="fals e" Priority="52" Name="List Table 7 Colorful Accent 5"/>\n<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46" Name="List Table 1 Light Accent 611 />\n<w:LsdE xceptio~ Locked="false" Priority="47'' Name="List Table 2 Accent 6"/>\n<w:L sdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name=" List Table 3 Accent 6"/>\n< w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name=''List Table 4 Accent 611 /> \n<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="List Table 5 Dark Ace ent 6''/>\n<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51" Name="List Table 6 Colorful Accent 6"/>\n<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52" Name="L ist Table 7 Colorful Accent 6''/>\n<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidde n="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="Mention"/>\n<w:LsdException Locked="f alse" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="Smart Hyperlink"/>\n<w :LsdException Locked="false" SemiHid<len="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name= "Hashtag"/>\n<w:LsdException Locked=''false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUs ed="true" Name="Unresolved Mention"/>\n</w:LatentStyles>\n</xml><![endif]-><style><!--\n/* Font Definitions */\n@font-face\n

{font-family:"Cambria Math"\;\n panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4\;\n

mso-font-charset:0\;\n mso-gene

P955

ric-font-family:roman\;\n mso~font-pitch:variable\;\n mso-font-signature:-

536869121 1107305727 3j554432 0 415 0\;}\n@font-face\n {font-family:Calibr i\;\n panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4\;\n mso-font-charset:0\;\n

mso-generic -font-family:swiss\;\n mso-font-pitch:variable\;\n

mso-font-signature:-469 750017 -1073732485 9 0 511 0\;}\n/* Style Definitions */\np.MsoNormal\, li .MsoNormal\, div.MsoNormal\n {mso-style-unhide:no\;\n

mso-style-qformat:ye s\;\n mso-style-parent:"''\;\n margin:0in\;\n mirgin-bottom:.0001pt\;\n

mso -pagination:widow-orphan\;\n font-size:11.0pt\;\n

font-family:"Calibri"\,s ans-serif\;\n mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri\;\n

mso-fareast-font-family:Ca libri\;\n mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri\;\n

mso-bidi-font-family:"Times Ne w Roman"\;}\na:link\, span.MsoHyperlink\n {mso-style-noshow:yes\;\n

mso-st yle-priority:99\;\n color:#0563C1\;\n

text-decoration:underline\;\n text-u nderline:single\;}\na:visited\, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed\n

{mso-style-nos how:yes\;\n mso-style-priority:99\;\n color:#954F72\;\n

text-decoration:un derline\;\n text-underline:single\;}\nspan.Emai1Style17\n

{mso-style-type: personal-compose\;\n mso-style-noshow:yes\;\n

mso-style-unhide:no\;\n mso-ansi-font-size:11.0pt\;\n mso-bidi-font-size:11.0pt\;\n

.font-family: "Calib ri"\,sans-serif\;\n mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri\;\n

mso-fareast-font-fam ily:Calibri\;\n mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri\;\n

mso-bidi-font-family:"Ti mes New Roman"\;\n color:windowtext\;}\n.MsoChpDefault\n

{mso-style-type:e xport-only\;\n mso-default-props:yes\;\n

font-family:"Calibri"\,sans-serif \;\n mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri\;\n

mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri\;\n mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri\;\n mso-bidi-font-family:"Times

New Roman"\ ;}\n@page WordSectionl\n {size:8.5in 11.0in\;\n margin:1.0in 1.0in

1. 0in 1 .0in\;\n mso-header-margin: .5in\;\n mso-footer-margin: .Sin\;\n

mso-paper-s ource:0\;}\ndiv.WordSection1\n {page:WordSectionl\;}\n--></style><!--[if g te mso 10]><style>/* Style Definitions */\ntable.MsoNormalTable\n

P956

{mso-sty le-name:"Table Normal"\;\n mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0\;\n

mso-tstyle-colban d-size:0\;\n mso-style-noshow:yes\;\n mso-style-priority:99\;\n

mso-style-parent: ""\; \n mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt\;\n mso-para-margin:0in\ ;\n mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt\;\n

mso-pagination:widow-orphan\;\n fon t-size:11.0pt\;\n font-family:"Calibri"\,sans-serif\;\n

mso-ascii-font-fam ily:Calibri\;\n mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri\;\n

msci-bidi-font-family:"Ti mes New Roman"\;}\n</style><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-US link="#0563C1" vlink="#~54F72" style='tab-interval:.Sin'><div class=WordSectionl><p class =MsoNormal><o:p>&nbsp\;</o:p></p></div></body></html>

X-MICROSOFT-CDO-BUSYSTATUS:BUSY X-MICROSOFT-CDO-IMPORTANCE:1 X-MICROSOFT-DISALLOW-COUNTER:FALSE X-MS-OLK-AUTOFILLLOCATION X-MS-OLK-CONFTYPE:I END:VEVENT END:VCALENDAR

P957

From: Heckel. Hank CMYR) To: Subject:

Anonymous; Breed. Mayor London CMYR); MayorSunshineRequests. MYR CMYR); SOTF. CBOS) RE: 19047 - Demand to produce records

Date: Monday, December 21, 2020 10:49:00 PM

Dear Anonymous,

We understand and respect the rulings of SOTF on these issues. We are continuing to consult with

the Department ofTechnology and the City Attorney's Office regarding the scope of any metadata,

including calendar ICS data, that can be safely and efficiently disclo.sed without jeopardizing the

safety, security al'ld integrity of the City and County of San Francisco's computer networks,

proprietary and licensed systems, and individual users' accounts. See Cal. Govt. Code§ 6253.9(f);

6254.19.

As you are well aware, this task is far from simple. I understand that you have not agreed to a pilot

protocol including a metadata field "green list" proposed by the Department ofTechnology and

continue to disagree with the boundaries drawn by the City's technical experts. This reflects the

continuing complexity of solving the associated technical and practical challenges of provjding all of

the information in all of the formats you have sought, without inadvertently disclosing cyber

sensitive information or information traditionally withheld for other reasons such as privilege or

privacy, that may be embedded in metadata.

Thus, we are working through additional guidance on these issues from the appropriate City

professionals, and will respond further when we have a clearer understanding of our obligations

under any applicable authorities or rulings, and a reliable methodology for securely and effectively

producing permissibly disclosed information while safeguarding exempt information.

Regards,

Hank Heckel

Compliance Officer

Office of the Mayor



Sent: Monday, December 21, 2020 7:09 PM

To: Heckel, Hank (MYR) <[email protected]>; Breed, Mayor London (MYR)

<[email protected]>; MayorSunshineRequests, MYR (MYR)

<[email protected]>; SOTF, (BOS) <[email protected]>

Subject: 19047 - Demand to produce records

This is the repeated demand that you produce the ICS files in case 19047.

You used the excuse of the metadata IT hearings to delay your compliance with the SOTF's order;

then the SOTF ruled for metadata disclosure in all respects.

P958



NOTE: Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all

warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or

fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any

other damages whatsoever. The digital signature (signature.asc attachment}, if any, in this email

is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do

not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the

government all be disclosab/e public records.

Sincerely,

Anonymous


P959

From: MayorSunshineRequests, MYR (MYR) To: Anonymous; MayorSunshineRequests. MYR CMYR) Subject: RE: Single Breed Calendar ICS/iCalendar Entry - Immediate Disclosure Request

Wednesday, January 20, 20211:18:00 AM Date:

Anonymous,

We have received this request. As you know, we have been continuing to consult with the City

Attorney's Office and the City's IT professionals regarding your requests as they relate to metadata

issues. We will provide an updated response on these issues in the context of our response to your

Compliance Committee hearing request.

Regards,

Hank Heckel

Compliance Officer

Office of the Mayor

. City and County of San Francisco


Sent: Thursday, December 17, 2020 8:58 PM

To: Breed, Mayor London (MYR) <[email protected]>; MayorSunshineRequests,·MYR

(MYR) <[email protected]>

Subject: Fw: Single Breed Calendar ICS/iCalendar Entry- Immediate Disclosure Request

London Breed and Office of the Mayor:

This is an immediate disclosure request for (1) the single earliest-in-the-day calendar meeting entry in the "Calendar, Mayor (MYR)" Outlook calendar for December 9, 2020 in the electronic form of an iCalendar or ICS file with minimal redactions and keys for the redactions, and (2) the single earliest-in-the-day calendar meeting entry in the "PropG, Mayor (MYR)" Outlook calendar for December 9, 2020 in the electronic form of an iCalendar or ICS file with minimal redactions and keys for the redactions. I want the entries that exist as of this request, if you don't have any meeting entries on Dec 9, the answer is 'no records' - do not make new Prop Gentries or provide altered records after the fact - they are not responsive.

Please Note:

1) Metadata has been ruled by the SOTF to be public and disclosable, and it must be minimally redacted with footnote or other clear reference for each redaction. (See SOTF 19044, 19047, 19098, 19105).

2) Mayor's Office has already accepted the public/disclosable nature of this

P960

information by providing fragments of ICS data in the past. The Office's own witness Makstman testified that not all of the information is exempt.

3) The iCalendar (ICS) format is "available" or "easily generated" (note, nothing is said about the ease of redaction, merely the ease of generation). In fact, in SOTF 19047, an SOTF member demonstrated to the Mayor's Office, live during the hearing, in a few seconds how to generate these .ICS files from their own Outlook calendar.

4) The Dept of Technology has now provided partially redacted ICS files of the Chief Information Security Officer's calendar, demonstrating that this is possible and does not pose a security risk: https://sanfrancisco.nextrequest.com/documents/5706615 (I don't accept that this example is minimally redacted, but it has something).

5) Other agencies have provided completely unredacted ICS files in the past, so any alleged information security risk even to the whole record is likely nonmaterial: https:/ /sanfrancisco. nextrequest.com /req uests./19-3456

6) City's prior arguments that Gov Code 6253{a) only make disclosable that information which is reasonably segregable from non-disclosable (exempt) information is a false statement of the law. Gov Code 6253(a) applies solely to inspection of records, not for copies thereof (where minimal redaction is possible and required by SFAC 67.26). The Sunshine Ordinance has an analog to this requirement in SF Admin Code 67.21(L) -you would not have to provide me the opportunity to inspect on a computer monitor this record, but you do have to provide me a copy with redactions. This line of argument has already been rejected by SOTF in both 19044 and 19047.

NOTE: Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author

disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all

warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for

any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The

digital signature (signature.asc attachment}, if any, in this email is not an indication

of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not

include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the

government all be disclosable public records.

Sincerely,

Anonymous

P961

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

DENNIS J. HERRERA

City Attorney

VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL

Honorable Members of the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force c/o: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors Attn: Victor Young, Administrator Room 244, City Hall 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place San Francisco CA 94102 victor. young@sf gov .org

OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY

JOHN COTE

Press Secretary, Communications Director

Direct Dial: (415) 554-4662 Email: [email protected]

January 20, 2021

Re: Sunshine Ordinance Task Force Complaint No. 19044 Anonymous (MuckRock News) v. Office of the City Attorney

Dear Honorable Task Force Members:

We write to address Anonymous' complaint to the Compliance Committee concerning File No. 19044, pertaining to email metadata.

Background

In 2019, Anonymous sent us an email and then asked us to produce that same email back to him in native format with all associated metadata. After consulting with our IT staff, we withheld the native file and produced the metadata with certain portions redacted, due to the cybersecurity risks (Cal. Gov't Code§ 6254.19) and under the official information privilege (Cal. Evid. Code § 1040). We had not fully studied the issue and reserved the right to revisit our approach in the future. (Ex. A.) In the hearings that followed, under Case No. 19044, the Task Force focused on the cybersecurity risks. On March 23, 2020, in response to the COVID-19 crisis, the Mayor issued an emergency order temporarily suspending Administrative Code section 67.24(g), so that City departments could invoke the general balancing exception found at Government Code section 6255. (Ex. B.)

On March 28, 2020, the Task Force issued its order of determination in Case No. 19044, finding that we had not demonstrated that all of the redactions were covered by section 6254.19. Thereafter, Anonymous requested additional metadata and on April 14, 2020, we responded that we were prioritizing the COVID-19 emergency and invoked section 6255. (Ex. C.) As we resumed our effort to study and better understand the issues surrounding metadata, with the aid of the City's cybersecurity experts at the Department of Technology ("DT"), Anonymous would periodically send us follow-up requests for the metadata. Our review with DT was still ongoing, so we responded that we were not yet ready to produce the metadata, to the extent it was a public record, under Government Code sections 6255 and 6254.19 and Evidence Code 1040. We also stated that we would inform Anonymous once the investigation was complete so that he would have the option to submit further requests. (See, e.g., Ex. D.) ·

CITY HALL· 1 DR. CARLTON B. GOODLETI PL, SUITE 234 ·SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94102-5408 RECEPTION: (415) 554-4700 ·FACSIMILE: (415) 554-4699

P962


Letter to Sunshine Ordinance Task Force, Page 2 January 20, 2021


The goal of our investigation with DT has been to understand what aspects of email metadata may be public record, and of that portion, what is subject to disclosure versus exempt. . DT's effort appears to be the first of its kind. (Ex. E.) Anonymous has been in communication with DT about the investigation, offering them suggestions as to what may be safely produced. (Id.) Also, though the Sunshine Ordinance specifies that a department need not "program or reprogram a computer to respond to a request for information," Admin. Code § 67.21(1), DT is attempting to develop a software program to help departments redact emails consistent with its recommendations. Our office recognizes that it may be appropriate to produce some portions of email metadata in response to public record requests specifically asking for it, and appreciates DT's efforts to help departments respond to such requests in a safe and reliable manner. As noted in Exhibit E, DT spent many months on this effort but its review was not yet complete as of December 31, 2020.

It Was Appropriate To Rely On Section 6255 To Withhold The Additional Metadata

Our office invoked section 6255 to withhold the additional metadata so that DT could fully investigate the matter and so that we could review DT' s recommendations with our IT staff. Under section 6255, an agency may withhold a record if the public interest served by non-disclosure clearly outweighs the public interest in disclosure. This "catch-all" exemption can justify withholding documents based on a range of public interests, including but not limited to the expense and inconvenience involved in segregating nonexempt from exempt information. (See, e.g., Becerra v. Superior Court (2020) 44 Cal. App. 5th 897, 927.)

We can think of no stronger case for invoking section 6255 than this. When Anonymous requested additional metadata in April 2020, the public interest in not disclosing it was that our office was helping the City grapple with an unprecedented crisis. People were losing their lives, their homes, and their livelihoods. City departments were struggling to provide essential services while staying safe. And our cybersecurity concerns were heightened because the City had just recently transitioned to remote work - a security breach at that time would have been especially harmful. In these extraordinary circumstances, our office and DT could not devote more resources to satisfying Anonymous, so we declined Anonymous's request and his follow-up requests until there was a plan that we could be confident would keep the City's computer systems safe. Meanwhile, there was only a very limited public interest, if any, in disclosing the specific metadata at issue. We do not argue there can never be a public interest in producing metadata. Disclosing certain metadata may further the public interest in individual cases, hence our commitment to work with the Task Force and DT on these issues. But there was no public interest in the additional metadata at issue here. Anonymous was seeking additional metadata from his own email. He knows that he sent us the email. He knows when he sent us the email. Our receipt of the email was never in dispute. It is hard to imagine that someone else would have even a private interest, much less a public interest, in this metadata. There is no public interest that warrants putting the City's computer systems at risk in this manner.

Now that DT has released a list of metadata fields that do not appear to raise a security risk, we are able to manually redact the email in question using that list, and are producing that metadata as an attachment to this response. (Exhibit E.) We are doing so as a show of good faith, in light of the concern the Task Force expressed about departments not "over-redacting" due to security concerns and section 6254.19. But we reserve the right to update our position regarding how section 6254.19 applies to email metadata should our risk assessment change. We cannot commit at this time to completing similar manual redactions of every document requested in the future, and we cannot commit to using a redaction tool until we have had the opportunity to test and verify

P963




the tool against our own system. We may also need to rely on exemptions other than 6254.19 and section 6255 in response to future requests for metadata.

Additional Bases To Redact Metadata

Our metadata investigation has confirmed that a.t least two other bases for withholding can apply to metadata: (1) that not all portions of the metadata are public record, and in the alternative, (2) that the information is exempt under the official information privilege. We cited to these reasons when we responded to Anonymous (Ex. D) and summarize them briefly below.

First, mere possession by a public agency does not make a document a public record. Whether information is a public record requires examination of several factors, including the content itself; the context in, or purpose for which, it was written; the audience to whom it was directed; and whether the writing was prepared by an employee acting or purporting to act within the scope of his or her employment. (City of San Jose v. Superior Court (2017) 2 Cal.5th 608, 618.) A writing must relate "in some substantive way" to the conduct of public business. (Id.) Again, we do not argue that no portion of email metadata may ever be a public record. Certain metadata fields may help to authenticate an email, or verify substantive information about the email that may be in dispute such as the identity of the sender/recipients and the time of receipt. But some portions of email metadata do not serve any of these purposes. When a City employee receives an email, the metadata is not part of the sender's communication to the City. Rather, third-party email software creates the metadata automatically when the message is received. The City employee does not have control over what metadata the system generates, and the metadata is automatic to every message regardless of its substantive content. And most City employees do not use (let alone understand) email metadata. Metadata' that does not rise above this basic threshold is not related to the conduct of public business, and is not a public record and need not be disclosed regardless whether there is a security risk for purposes of section 6254.19.

To be clear, this rule is not,unique to metadata. The outside of a manila folder may come pre-stamped as having originated with "Staples" or "OfficeMax" and yet the outside of each empty folder is not a public record- it is the contents of the folder that may be subject to disclosure. The back of a file cabinet may be .inscribed with a make and model number. The side of a marker may say it was manufactured by "Sharpie" and warn that the ink is permanent. All of these examples involve written information generated by outside parties that is in the custody of the City, but they are not public records; because the information does not relate in any way to the actual conduct of public business. Email metadata is similar. It is not categorically exempt from disclosure just because it is metadata, but at the same time, all metadata is not automatically subject to disclosure.

Second, assuming a request seeks portions of the metadata that are public record and putting aside sections 6254.19 and 6255 an agency may also withhold information that was acquired in confidence, where there is a necessity for preserving the confidentiality of the information that outweighs the necessity for disclosure in the interest of justice. Cal. Gov't Code § 1040(b )(2). Our office's policy has been to keep email metadata confidential, primarily because it does not relate to public business and due to the significant security risks. We also keep email metadata confidential because portions of the email metadata, for example if it discloses the sender's IP address, may implicate third-party privacy. These are strong interests to maintain confidentiality. While individual circumstances may theoretically create a need to disclose certain metadata fields, that need will in many cases be clearly outweighed by the necessity for keeping the metadata confidential.

P964



Summary


We have worked constructively with the Task Force and DT to develop a method to safely produce certain email metadata. Due to the technical complexity of the matter and the extraordinary circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic, it was necessary and appropriate to take the time to evaluate the security risks carefully.

Very truly yours,

DENNIS J. HERRERA Cityf omey I/ J~e Press Secretary, Communications Director

P965

OFFICE OF THE MAYOR SAN FRANCISCO

LONDON N. BREED MAYOR

FIFTH SUPPLEMENT TO MAYORAL PROCLAMATION DECLARING THE EXISTENCE OF A LOCAL EMERGENCY DATED FEBRUARY 25, 2020

·WHEREAS, California Government Code Sections 8550 et seq., San Francisco Charter Section 3 .100(14) and Chapter 7 of the San Francisco Administrative Code empower the Mayor to proclaim the existence of a local emergency, subject to concurrence by the Board of Supervisors as provided in the Charter, in the case ·of an emergency threatening the lives, property or welfare of the City and County or its citizens; and

WHEREAS, On February 25, 2020, the Mayor issued a Proclamation (the "Proclamation") declaring a local emergency to exist in connection with the imminent spread within the City of a novel (new) coronaviru~ ("COVID-19"); and

WHEREAS, On March 3, 2020, the Board of Supervisors concurred in the Proclamation and in the actions taken by the Mayor to meet the emergency; and

. . . .

WHEREAS, On March 4, 2020, Governor Gavin Newsom proelaimed a state of emergency to exist within the State due to the threat posed by COVID-19; and

WHEREAS, On March 6, 2020, the Local Health Officer declared a local health emergency under Section 101080 of the California Health and Safety Code, and the Board of Supervisors concurred in that declaration on March 10, 2020; and

WHEREAS, On March 6, 2020, the City issued public health guidance to encourage social distancing to disrupt the spread of COVID-19 and protect community health; and

WHEREAS, On March 7, 2020, the Local Health Officer ordered certain City facilities not to hold non-essential group events of more than 50 people for the two weeks from the date of the order and prohibited visitors from Laguna Honda Hospital; and

WHEREAS, On March 7, 2020, the Department of Human Resources issued guidance to minimize COVID-19 exposure risk for City employees who provide essential services to the local community, iti particular during the current local emergency; and .

WHEREAS, On March 11, 2020, March 13, 2020, March 17, 2020, and March 18, 2020, the Mayor issued supplements to the Proclamation, ordering additional measures to respond to the emergency; and

P966



WHEREAS, On March 16, 2020, the Local Health Officer issued an order requiring most people to remain at home subject to ce1iain exceptions including obtaining essential goods such as food and necessary supplies, and requiring the closure of non-essential businesses, through April 7, 2020; and

WHEREAS, On March 16, 2020, the Governor issued Executive Order N-28-20, finding that it is necessary to promote stability among residential and commercial tenancies to fmiher public health and to mitigate the economic pressures of the emergency, and waiving certain provisions of state law so that local jurisdictions may achieve these purposes; and

WHEREAS, On March 17, 2020, the Governor issued Executive Order N-29-20, suspending provisions of state and local law to allow policy bodies to hold public meetings remotely without providing a physical meeting place so long as the policy body

· provides a means for the public to observe and address the policy body; and

WHEREAS, On March 19, 2020, the Governor issued Executive Order N-33-20 and the California Public Health Officer issued a corresponding order requiring people to stay home except as needed to maintain the continuity of operations of federal critical infrastructure sectors; and

WHEREAS, On March 21, 2020, the Governor issued Executive Order N-35-20, suspending provisions of state law to allow policy bodies to simultaneously receive briefings from local, state, or federal officials concerning information relevant to the COVID-19 emergency outside of a meeting of the policy body and to ask questions of such officials, so long as the members of the policy body do not discuss the briefing amongst themselves or take any action; and

WHEREAS, There are currently over 131 confirmed cases of COVID-19 within the City, more than 2,100 confirmed cases in Caiifornia, and there have been 39 COVID-19-related deaths in California; and

WHEREAS, On March 18, 2020, the San Francisco Superior Court stayed all actions of unlawful detainer cases for 90 days, except those resulting from violence, threats of violence, or health and safety issues, and ordered that the period from March 18, 2020, through April 15, 2020 is deemed a holiday for purposes of computing time under Code

2

P967



of Civil Procedure Section 1167, with the exception of unlawful detainer cases resulting from violence, threats .of violence, or health and safety issues; and

WHEREAS, In the Mayor's Second Supplement to the Proclamation dated March 13, 2020, the Mayor temporarily suspended certain provisions of the City's Rent Ordinance that allow landlords to evict tenants due to non-payment of rent; the extreme · circumstances presented by the COVID-19 crisis warrant expanding the protectiOns in the Second Supplement so that there is a temporary moratorium on additional evictions, · consistent with the Governor's Executive Order N-28-20 and the Superior Court's March 18, 2020 order; and

WHEREAS, Construction of temporary medical and public health facilities for testing · and treatment may be necessary to address the crisis. posed py COVID-19, and it is in the public interest to remove barriers in local law that would prohibit or slow the creation of such facilities; and

WHEREAS, The City is taking immediate action to procure rooms ill hotels and similar facilities so that the City can provide temporary shelter to vulnerable persons who are unable to self-quarantine, and to persons who are assisting in the emergency response, and it will ·be essential that the City be able to transition these persons in and out of the rooms, in order to quicldy and safely address the spread of the virus, and it is in the

· public interest to suspend local laws that may slow the process or disincentivize owners of hotels and similar facilities from making their properties available for these purposes; and

WHEREAS, Administrative Code Section 14.3(f)(2) requires employers to report annually on health care expenditures pursuant to the San Francisco Health Care Security Ordmance and Police Code Section 491 O(b) requires employers to report annually on compliance with the San Francisco Fair Chance Ordinance; and the work required to compile and report this data would require some employers to engage in non-essential travel to their places of business and would place further economic strain on employers; and

WHEREAS, The COVID-19 emergency and related health restrictions has impacted the ability of City policy bodies to safely meet in person; as noted above, the Governor has . relaxed state laws governing public meetings; it is in the public interest to suspend select

3

P968



provisions oflocal law to allow policy bodies to meet efficiently and safely during the emergency consistent with state law and while ensuring public participation; and

WHEREAS, Many City employees have been reassigned from their normal duties or deployed as Disaster Service Workers to assist in the emergency response effort; other City employees must prioritize and devote their work time to work related to the emergency response; City departments have been directed to support tel~commuting to the extent p_ossible, and telecommuting employees may not have access to City records; and many City employees are unable to work full-time because they are caring for . children and family members at home who have been impacted by the pandemic; these changes to the typical functioning of the City workforce and workplace have burdened the City's ability to respond to requests for public records; temporarily suspending select provisions of the Sunshine Ordinance will allow the City to devote limited staff resources to emergency services and providing services to the public while still providing transparency; the California Public Records Act will continue to apply; and

WHEREAS, The Mayor proclaims that the conditions of extreme peril exist and continue to wanant and necessitate the existence of a local emergency,

NOW, THEREFORE,

I, London N. Breed, Mayor of the City and County of San Francisco, proclaim that there continues to exist an emergency within the City and County threatening the lives, property or welfare of the City and County and its citizens;

In addition. to the measures outlined in the Proclamation and in the Supplements to the Proclamation dated March 11, March 13, March 17, and March 18, 2020, it is further ordered that:

(1) It is necessary to amend the temporary moratorium on eviction for non-payment of rent by residential tenants directlyimpacted by the COVID-19 crisis, as stated in Section 1 of the Second Supplement dated March 13, 2020, to clarify that it also applies to housing providers who are exempt from the Rent Ordinance because their rent is controlled or regulated by the City; to allow tenants to obtain extensions due to expenses that are non-medical in nature; and to modify the notification and timing procedures that apply when a tenant requires an extension. Accordingly, Section 1 of the Second Supplement is hereby withdrawn, and the temporary moratorium shall be as follows:

4

P969



(a) Notwithstanding Section 37.9(a)(l) of the Administrative Code, if a residential tenant has not timely made a rent payment that was due on or after March 13, 2020, the landlord may not recover possession of the unit under Section 37.9(a)(l) ifthe tenant has provided notice to the landlord within- 3 0 days after the date that rent was due that the tenant is unable to pay rent due to financial impacts related to COVID-19. This eviction moratorium also applies to housing providers who are exempt from Chapter J 7 on the bas.is that the rent is. controlled or regulated by the City (including without limitation privately-operated units regulated by the Mayor's Office of Housing and Community Development or the Department of Homelessness and Supportive Housing).

(b) For purposes of this Order, "financial impacts" means a substantial loss of household income due to business closure, loss of compensable hours of work or wages, layoffs, or extraordinary out-of-pocket. expenses. A financial impact is "related to COVID-19" if it was caused by the.COVID-19 pandemic, the Mayor's Proclamation, the Local Health Officer's Dedaration of Local Health Emergency, or orders or recommended guidance related to COVID-19 from local, state, or federal authorities.

( c) Within one week of providing notice under. subsection (1 )(a), the tenant shall provide the landlord documentation or other objectively verifiable information that due to financial impacts related to COVID-19, the tenant is unable to pay rent. The landlord may attempt to proceed under Section 37.9(a)(l) ifthe tenant does not comply with this requirement to provide documentation of fmaricial impact within one week. If the tenant has provided documentation, then the tenant shall automatically receive an additional month after the date the tenant provided the documentation to pay the rent. If the tenant does not pay the rent at that time, the landlord must inform the tenant of the breach in writing, and the landlord and tenant shall then attempt to discuss the matter in good faith in order to develop a payment plan for the tenant to pay the missed rent.

( d) This Order shall last for a period of 3 0 days, until the Proclamation of Local Emergency is terminated, or upon further Order from the Mayor, whichever occurs sooner. The Mayor may extend this Order by an additional period of 30 days if conditions at that time warrant extension. The Mayor shall provide notice of the. extension through an Executive Order posted on the Mayor's website and delivered to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors.

( e) Upon expiration or termination of this Order, a tenant who provided the notice required under subsection (l)(a) shall have up to six months to pay the rent owed.to the

5

P970

OFFICE OF THE MAYOR SAN FRANCl.SCO


landlord, before the landlord may recover possession due to those missed rent payments under Section 37.9(a)(l). The foregoing sentence does not prevent a landlord from providing a tenant additional time under a payment plan. During the six-month period, a landlord may reque~t documentation of the tenant's ongoing inability to pay, and the tenant shall pay if able to do so, but under no circumstances shall a tenant's failure to timely respond to a follow-up request for documentation invalidate the six-month extension period. At the end of the six-month extension period, ifthe tenant still has riot

·paid all outstanding rent, Section 37.9(a)(l) shall apply.

(f) Nothing in this Order relieves a tenant of the obligation to pay rent, nor restricts a landlord's ability to recover the rent due through means other than an eviction for non-payment.

(g) The Director of the Mayor's Office of Housing and Community Development or the Director's designee, in consultation with the Executive Director of the Rent Board as appropriate,· is delegated authority to adopt regulations and to develop and publish guidelines consistent with this Order, including through the development of forms and recommendations of the types of documentation that may show financial impacts related to COVID-19.

(2) There shall be a moratorium on attempts to recover possession of rental units from residential tenants, if the effective date of the notice ofteimination of tenancy would fall within 60 days after the date this Order expires or is terminated, except where the landlord is endeavoring to recover possession due to violence, threats of violence, or ·. health and safety issues. This Order.shall apply.to evictions under Section 37.9(a)(13) only if and when the Governor or State Legislature authorize such limitations ori Ellis Act evictions during this state of emergency. The Executive Director of the Rent Board is

. directed to develop a form that landlords shall be required to include with any eviction notices, to inform tenants of the requirements of Sections (1) and (2) of this Order, and of the Superior Court Order.

(3) Temporary medical or public health facilities related to the City's COVID-19 response, as recommended by the Director of Public Health or the· Director's designee and authorized by the Mayor or the Mayor's designee, shall be allowed in the City, including on any City streets; any provision in City law that limits or restricts deployment of any emergency public health response is hereby waived, and any applicable local

6

P971



requirements for public notice, the filing or approval of a permit application, or payment of fees are hereby waived. ·

( 4) Any hotel, or other tourist or transient use, may be used for residential purposes related to the City's COVID-19 response without losing its designation as a hotel, tourist, or transient use under the Planning Code orAdministrative Code Chapter 41. Any provision in City law that limits or restricts such conversions to residential use is hereby waived during the local emergency, and all otherwise applicable local requirements for public notice, the filing or approval of a pe1mit application, or payment of fees are hereby waived. Chapter 37 of the Administrative Code shall not apply to any rooms used for the City's COVID-19 response in a hote~ or other tourist or transient use property. For avoidance of doubt, the rooms shall not be "rental units" for the purpose of the Rent Ordinance under Administrative Code Section 37.2(r), and individuals staying in such rooms shall not be "tenants" under Administrative Code Section 37.2(t).

( 5) The requirements for employers to report in 2020 on prior year health care expenditures and Fair Chance Ordinance compliance pursuant to Administrative Code Section 14.3(£)(2) and Police Code Section4910(b) are waived.

( 6) The following provisions of City law governing policy body meetings are hereby suspended, until the termination of the emergency, unless the Mayor provides notice to the Board of Supervisors that the suspension is no longer necessary and rescinds this Order:

(a) The requirements in Administrative Code Section 67.6(f) that policy bodies provide 72 hours' notice of special meetings and 15 days' notice of special meetings held at a location other than the building where the policy body holds regular meetings.

(b) All requirements in the Municipal Code, including in Administrative Code Chapters 8 and 67, that agendas or other information be posted at the Main Library; provided that the policy body makes reasonable efforts to post the agenda outside Room 244 in City Hall, the office for the Board of Supervisors, but only so long as the Main Library is not open to the general public.

( c) Any requirement in the Administrative Code or Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code to televise policy body meetings ifthe chairperson. of the

7

P972


LONDON N. BREED · MAYOR

policy body determines, in consultation with the Mayor's office or the staff of . SFGOVTV, that televising a particular meeting is not reasonably feasible.

( d) Any requirement in Administrative Code Chapter 67 requiring policy bodies to provide a physical location for members of the public to attend or make public comment at a meeting in which all members of the policy body are teleconferencing from remote locations. The chairperson of each policy body may determine, in consultation with the Mayor's office and the clerk or secretary of the policy body, whether to provide a physical location for a particular meeting.

( e) All requirements in Chapter 67 of the Administrative Code concerning passive meetings and passive meeting bodies.

(f) The provision of Section 67.15(c) of the Administrative Code requiring that each member of the public be provided an equal amount of time for public comment, provided that any departure from the equal time rule not be intended to favor or discriminate against a particular viewpoint.

(g) Administrative Code Section 67 .3(b) is suspended to the extent it would prohibit policy bodies from receiving updates relevant to the declared emergency as permitted by the Governor's Executive Order N-35-20, or any other order of the Governor in the exercise of his emergency powers.

(7) The following provisions of City law governing public records are hereby suspended for pending and future records requests, until the termination of the emergency, unless the Mayor provides notice to the Board of Supervisors that the suspension is no longer necessary and rescinds this Order:

(a) The requirements in Administrative Code Section 67.21(a) and (b) that City agencies comply with requests for inspection or copying of a public record within 10 days following receipt of the request, or provide a written justification for withholding a record within 10 days. The foregoing sentence only addresses those deadlines under the Sunshine Ordinance, and does not affect a City agency's obligation to provide an initial response to a requester within the timeframes set forth in California Government Code Section 6253(c).

8

P973



(b) The requirement in Administrative Code Section 67 .21 ( c) that City agencies comply with requests for descriptions of records.

( c) The requirement in Administrative Code Section 67 .24( e )(3) that City agencies prepare and provide documents. and information during the course of contract negotiations.

( d) The restriction in Administrative Code Sections 67.24(g) and 67.24(i) prohibiting City.departments from relying upon Government Code Section 6255 or any similar provision as the basis for withholding any documents or infol1Ilation. This

. paragraph does not suspend Administrative Code Section 67 .24(h) regarding a "deliberative process" exemption.

(e) All deadlines in Administrative Code Section 67.21 for the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force or the Supervisor of Records to make determinations, and all deadlines in the Administrative Code or in regulations for parties to submit information to the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force. All such deadlines shall be tolled until 15 days after the termination of this Order.

(f) The requirement in Administrative Code Section 67.2l(e) that an authorized representative of the custodian of records attend any hearing concerning a records request and explain its decision to withhold the records requested,

(8) Any provision of City law, including but not limited to Administrative Code Chapter 67, that relates to meetings of policy bodies or public records is hereby suspended to the extent that it either (i) conflicts with an executive order of the Gove1nor issued in the exercise of his emergency powers, or (ii) would render it unlawful t6 comply with such a gube1natorial order without meeting additional requirements impos.ed by City law. The purpose of this paragraph is to align City law with state law to the extent any provision of state law regarding meetings of policy bodies or public records is modified or suspended by the Gove1nor in the exerdse of his emergency powers.

DATED:M4~3,2020 ~ ~

n:\govern\as2020\9690082\01436446.doc

9

P974

London N. Breed Mayor of San Francisco

Leger, Cheryl (BOS)


Dear Cheryl,

Heckel, Hank (MYR) Wednesday, January 20, 2021 7:51 PM Leger, Cheryl (BOS) Anonymous; SOTF, (BOS) FW: 19047 - Compliance Committee Hearing

Please see below our response and the attachments for the Compliance Committee Hearing for 19047. I apologize for the delay and hope that this can be included in the file. Please let me know if you have any questions.

Regards,

Hank Heckel

Legal Compliance Officer Office of the Mayor


From: Heckel, Hank {MYR)

Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2021 7:49 PM To: Anonymous <[email protected]>; Leger, Cheryl {BOS) <[email protected]>

Cc: MayorSunshineRequests, MYR {MYR) <[email protected]>; SOTF, {BOS) <[email protected]> Subject: RE: 19047 - Compliance Committee Hearing

Dear Anonymous,

Please see the attached response and supplemental production relating to your request for a Compliance Committee

Hearing in SOTF File 19047, scheduled for January 26. We have no objection to going forward on that day and we hope

that our response addresses your concerns.

Regards,

Hank Heckel Compliance Officer Office of the Mayor




Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2021 4:57 PM To: Heckel, Hank (MYR) <[email protected]>; Leger, Cheryl {BOS) <[email protected]> Cc: MayorSunshineRequests, MYR {MYR) <[email protected]>; SOTF, {BOS) <[email protected]>

Subject: RE: 19047 - Calendar redaction automation

1 P975



NOTE: 1. If you are a public official: I intend that these communications all be disclosable public records, and I will not hold in confidence any of your messages, notwithstanding any notices to the contrary. 2. Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. 3. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. 4. The digital signature (signature.asc attachment), if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agr'eemerit or offer; it merely authenticates the sender.

Sincerely,

Anonymous

-------Original Message -------On Wednesday, January 20th, 2021at4:52 PM, Heckel, Hank (MYR) <[email protected]> wrote:

Anonymous,


Regards,

Hank Heckel

Compliance Officer

Office of the Mayor


2 P976

From: Anonymous <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 202111:34 AM To: Heckel, Hank (MYR) <[email protected]>; Breed, Mayor London (MYR) <[email protected]>; MayorSunshineRequests, MYR (MYR) <[email protected]>; Elsbernd, Sean (MYR) <[email protected]>; Bruss, Andrea (MYR) <[email protected]>; Leger, Cheryl (BOS) <[email protected]>; Sun, Selina (MYR) <[email protected]>; Lee, Mason (MYR) <[email protected]> Cc: SOTF, (BOS) <[email protected]>; Lila LaHood <[email protected]>; Bruce Wolfe (Chair, SOTF, SF) <[email protected]> · Subject: 19047 - Calendar redaction automation

Ms. Gerull informs me she has the initial testing version of the software to automate metadata

redactions and looking for departments to try it out.

You could send some of these ICS's from 19047 through her software and reply to me/SOTF before 5

pm with the redacted documents ...


Pinging the Mayor's Office once again to produce records for 19047. Apparently you. have until tomorrow Spm.






3 P977



SOTF:


• No JCS calendars for this request were ever produced, let alone minimally redacted.

• While the Mayor did initially produce non-Prop G calendars - the ones Heckel lied to SOTF about not existing - they have also stopped producing non-Prop G calendars, and only produce the Prop G calendars. (As a reminder, the Mayor has two separate Outlook calendars, both used for business purpose - called "Calendar, Mayor" and "PropG, Mayor")


Attached is an example of DT's compliant ICS calendars -note how almost nothing is actually an IT risk (of the 6 words redacted in the entire record, DT later agreed in writing that 2 of them should not be redacted -leaving a total of 4 words for Respondents to redact).

Respondents will plead with you for yet more time so that they and H.errera can continue to indefinitely scheme. Reject their request. It is completely unreasonable to produce no new records in 440 days. As your members pointed out in the original hearing, if Respondents had given some JCS record redacted how they wished, then SOTF could judge it. But they didn't then and still haven't.


Sincerely,

Anonymous

5 P979

Leger, Cheryl (BOS)

From: To:

Subject:

Good Afternoon:

SOTF, (BOS)

[email protected]; COTE, JOHN (CAT); Cityattorney; Heckel,

Hank (MYR); [email protected]; cjkohrs; Youngblood, Stacy

(POL); S; McHale, Maggie (HRD); Callahan, Micki (HRD); Vu, Tyler (PDR);

[email protected]; Nicole Mitchell

SOTF - Notice of Appearance - Compliance and Amendments Committee; January 26,

2021 4:30 p.m.


Date: January 26, 2021

Location: Remote meeting; participant information to be included on the Agenda

Time: 4:30 p.m.



Complaints:

1. File No. 19044: Complaint filed by Anonymous against Dennis Herrera and the Office of the City Attorney for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Sections 67.21, 61.26, 61.27, Government Code Sections 6253, 6253.9 and 6255, by failing to respond to a public records request in a timely and/or complete manner.

2. File No. 19047: Complaint filed by Anonymous against Mayor London Breed, Hank Heckel and the Office of the Mayor for allegedly violating Administrative Code, (Sunshine Ordinance) Sections 67.21 and 67.26 and 67.27 and Government Code (CPRA) 6253.9, 6253, and 6255, by failing to respond to a request for public records in a timely and/or complete manner.

1 P980

3. File No. 19145: Complaint filed by Chris Kohrs against the Police Commission for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Sections 67.5 and 67.21, by failing to respond to a public records request in a timely and/or complete manner.

4. File No. 19140: Complaint filed by Stephen Malloy against the Department of Human Resources for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Sections 67.21and 67.25, by failing to respond to a request for public records in a timely and/or complete manner.

5. File No. 19114: Complaint filed by Shane Anderies against Tyler Vu and the Public Defender's Office for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Section 67.24, 67.25, 67.26, 67.27 and 67.29 by failing to respond tb an Immediate Disclosure Request in a timely and/or complete manner.


For a document to be considered, it must be received at least five (5) working days before the hearing (see attached Public Complaint Procedure). For inclusion into the agenda packet, supplementaVsupporting documents must be received by 5:00 pm, January 20, 2021..


• ll.t;J Click here to complete a Board of Supervisors Customer Service Satisfaction form.


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 identifjling 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 ji-om these submissions. This means that personal information-including names, phone nwnbers, 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.

2 P981

Leger, Cheryl (BOS)


SOTF, (BOS) . Monday, August 5, 2019 12:14 PM '72056-97339218® requests.muckrock.com'; '72902-46637773 ® requests.muckrock.com' SOTF - Complaint Committee hearing of August 20, 2019

Dear Anonymous:

I write to you today to confirm your audio appearance at the August 20, 2019, Complaint Committee hearing. This is because you will need to provide your telephone number for a telephone appearance in hearing room 408 at City Hall in San Francisco. I will forward instructions for your appearance before that date.


• I{~ Click here to complete a.Board of Supervisors Customer Service Satisfaction form.


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 corrimunicote 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 o member of the public elects to submit 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.

pg1gz

From: Sent: To:

Subject:

I (BOS)

SOTF, (BOS)

Monday, July 29, 2019 2:06 PM

Juan De Anda; Rudakov, Vladimir (HSA); Pang, Ken (HSA); JOHN HOOPER; Corgas,

Christopher (ECN); Thompson, Marianne (ECN); Nuru, Mohammed (DPW); Steinberg, David (DPW); Goldberg, Jonathan (DPW); 72056-9733921 [email protected];

Cote, John (CAT); [email protected]~com; Heckelr Hank (MYR)

SOTF - Notice of Appearance - Complaint Committee; August 20, 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 Complaint Committee to: 1) hear the merits of the complaint; 2) issue a determination; and/or 3) consider referrals from a Task Force Committee.

Date: August 20, 2019


Time: 5:30 p.m.


Respondents/Departments: Pursuant to Section 67.21 (e) of the Ordinance, the custodian ofrecords or a representative of your department, who can speak to the matter, is required at the meeting/hearing.

Complaints:

File No. 19068: Complaint filed by Sophia De Anda against the Human Services Agency 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.

File No. 19061: Complaint filed by John Hooper against the Office of Economic and Workforce Development 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.

File No. 19062: Complaint filed by John Hooper against Public Works 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.



p 9-83


For a document to be considered, it must be received at least five (5) working days before the hearing (see attached Public Complaint Procedure). For inclusion into the agenda packet, supplemental/supporting documents must be received by 5:00 pm, August 13, 2019.


• 1/1,>f!'J Click here to complete a Board of Supervisors Customer Service Satisfacti_on 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. identifjling 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~84

Leger, Che


I (BOS)

SOTF, (BOS) Tuesday, June 25, 2019 3:12 PM [email protected] Heckel, Hank (MYR) SOTF - Request for a continuance by Respondent

Dear Anonymous:

I just received a phone call from Hank Heckel of the Mayor's office who notified me that he will be out of the office on July 3 and therefore unavailable for the Compliance and Amendments Committee hearing on that date. Mr. Heckel also stated that there is no other person most knowledgeable available to attend this hearing from the Mayor's office. This request refers to file no. 19047 (complaint description below). By way of this email, I am also notifying the Chair of that Committee of the Respondent's request. Please acknowledge receipt of this message. Thank you.



• 1111,(!) Click here to complete a Board of Supervisors Customer Service Satisfaction form.


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 submit to the Board and its committees-may appear on the Boord of Supervisors website or in other public documents that members of the public may inspect or copy.

PS85

Leger, Cheryl (BOS)


[email protected] Thursday, September 19, 2019 3:09 PM SOTF, (BOS) RE: California Public Records Act Request #19089


September 19, 2019


****FILE 19047 ****

Can you please send the current PDF of the 19047 file, so I know what I need to ask to be added?

Filed via MuckRock.com E-mail (Preferred): [email protected] Upload documents directly: https://accounts.muckrock.com/accounts/login/?url_auth_token=AAAxJlxKbHL78P4hPis99lsuo1Y%3AliB4bW%3AhX_JP ldk2gor4ZAHnkAwS2pRRhM&next=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.muckrock.com%2Faccounts%2Flogin%2F%3Fnext%3D%252F accounts%252Fagency_login%252Foffice-of-the-mayor-3891%252Fapril-28-may-4-2019-calendar-immediate-disclosurerequest-72902%252F%253Femail%253Dsotf%252540sfgov.org Is this email coming to the wrong contact? Something else wrong? Use the above link to let us know.

· For mailed responses, please address (see note): MuckRock News DEPT MR 72902 411A Highland Ave Somerville, MA 02144-2516


On Sept. 19, 2019: Subject: SOTF - Notice ofAppearance - Sunshine Ordinance Task Force: October 2, 2019, 4:00 p.m., Room 408 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: October 2, 2019

P9B6

Leger, Cheryl {BOS)

From: Sent: To:

Subject:

Attachments:

Good Afternoon:

SOTF, (BOS)

Thursday, September 19, 2019 2:21 PM

Marc Bruno; lonin, Jonas (CPC); Madjus, Lily (DBI); Strawn, William (DBI); 'Celaya,

Caroline'; 'Boomer, Roberta'; Sallaberry, Mike (MTA); '[email protected]';

'[email protected]'; 'Cote, John (CAT)'; '72902-46637773

@requests.muckrock.com'; Heckel, Hank (MYR); Breed, Mayor London (MYR); Breed,

London (MYR); 'Liz Arbus'; 'Liz Arbus'; Patterson, Kate (ART); carlos petri;

BAUMGARTNER, MARGARET (CAT); 'Mark Zukerberg';

'[email protected]' SOTF - Notice of Appearance - Sunshine Ordinance Task Force: October 2, 2019, 4:00

p.m., Room 408 SOTF - Complaint Procedure 2019-06-05 FINAL.pdf

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: October 2, 2019


Time: 4:00 p.m.


Respondents/Departments: Pursuant to Section 67.21 (e) of the Ordinance, the custodian ofrecords or a representative of your department, who can speak to the matter, is required at the meeting/hearing ..

Complaints:

File No. 17097: Complaint filed by Marc Bruno against the Planning Department, Board of appeals and the Department of Building Inspection for allegedly vl.olating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Sections 67.21 and 67.25, by failing to respond to a public records request in a timely and/or complete manner.

File No. 17114: Complaint filed by Marc Bruno against the Department of Building Inspection for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Sections 67.21and67.25, by failing to respond to a public records request in a timely and/or complete manner.

File No.17115: Complaint filed by Marc Bruno against the Board of Appeals for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Sections 67.21 and 67.25, by failing to respond to a public records request in a timely and/or complete manner.

File No. 17079: Complaint filed by Mary Miles against Mike.Sallaberry, San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency, for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Section 67.25, by failing to respond to an Immediate Disclosure Request in a timely and/or complete manner.

p91g7

File No. 17080: Complaint filed by Mary Miles against Will Tabajonda, San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency, for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Section 67.25, by failing to respond to an Immediate Disclosure Request in a timely and/or complete manner.

File No. 17081: Complaint filed by Mary Miles against Luis Montoya, San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency, for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Slinshine Ordinance), Section 67.25, by failing to respond to an Immediate Disclosure Request in a timely and/or complete manner.



File No. 19010: Hearing to consider action to close Sunshine Ordinance Task Force complaints due inactivity and other violations of the SOTF Complaint Procedures for the following files:

17102 Liz Arbus vs Arts Commission 18071 Liz Arbus vs Arts Commission 18085 Liz Arbus vs Arts Commission 18090 Carlos Petri vs Office of the City Attorney 18091 Mark Zuckerberg vs Arts Commission 19009 Lucinda Page vs Arts Commission.


For a document to be considered, it must be received at least five (S) working days before the hearing (see attached Public Complaint Procedure). For inclusion into the agenda packet, supplemental/supporting documents must be received by 5:00 pm, September 25, 2019.




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 identifjlfng information when they conimunicate with the Board of Supervisors and its committees. All written or oral comm.unications 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

P97a8

I (BOS)

From: Sent: To:

Subject:

SOTF, (BOS)

Thursday, June 20, 2019 2:40 PM

Vien, Veronica (DPH); Alex Lewis-Koskinen; Jamie Whitaker; Stewart-Kahn, Abigail

(HOM); Patterson, Kate (ART); Ashley Rhodes; 72902-46637773

@requests.muckrock.com; Heckel, Hank (MYR)

SOTF - Notice of Hearing - Compliance and Amendments Committee; July 3, 2019 4:30

p.m.

Good Morning:


Date: July 3, 2019


Time: 4:30 p.m.



Complaints:


File No. 19060: Complaint filed by Ashley Rhodes against the Arts Commission for allegedly violating Administrative Code, Section 67.21, by failing to respond to a request for public records in a timely and/or complete manner.

File No. 19025: Complaint filed by Jamie Whitaker against the Homelessness and Supportive Housing for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Section 67.21, by failing to respond to a public records request in a timely 31).d/or complete manner.


Documentation (evidence supporting/ disputing complaint)

P9139



• II.~ Click here to complete a Board of Supervisors Customer Service Satisfaction form.


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 fl-om 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.

Pi90

D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D - City and County of ...

Documents

Transcript of D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D - City and County of ...