§lljjn§h~nle orld~nancle l'a§~ forcie agenda packet

~tem No. 4

§lLJJN§H~NlE ORlD~NANClE l'A§~ fORCIE AGENDA PACKET CONTENTS LIST

=======

SOTF - Compliance and Amendments Committee Date: November 14, 2016

1221 Memorandum - Deputy City Attorney S Complaint and Supporting documents B Respondent's Response ~, Orrder of Determination 0 Minutes ~ Correspondence D Committee Recommendation/Referral D D D D No Attachments

OTHER

D Administrator's Report D D D Public Correspondence D

Completed by: __ V_. _Y_o_un~g~ _____ Date 11/10/16

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

P9

EDWIN M. LEE MAYOR

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

POLICE DEPARTMENT HEADQUARTERS

1245 3 RD Street San Francisco, California 94158

TONEY D. CHAPLIN INTERIM CHIEF OF POLICE

November 8, 2016

VIA EMAIL

Mr. Victor Young Sunshine Ordinance Task Force 1 Dr. Canton B. Goodlett P1., Room 244 San Francisco, CA 94102

Re: Notice of Hearing of November 14, 2016 for File No. 16053 - Complaint filed by Mr. Joel Ekno v. The San Francisco Police Department

Dear Mr. Young,

Good Afternoon. In response to the above-referenced complaint, the San Francisco Police Department Crime Information Services Division ("CISD') has provided Mr. Ekno with requested incident report number 160094640.

Thank you.

Sincerely, I /

LT. KATH RIAALAN D #1361

LT. KATHRYN WAALAND Commanding Officer Legal Division

§lJN§HJLNJE ORDINANCE TA§KFORCJE

DATE ISSUED August 3, 2016

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 September 15, 2016

CASE TITLE - Joel Ekno v. Officer Candy Hilder and the Police Department (File No. 16053)

FACTS OF THE CASE

On June 3, 2016, Joel El<no (Complainant) filed the following complaint:

File No. 16053: Complaint filed by Joel Ekno against Officer Candy Hilder and the Police Department 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.

HEARING ON THE COMPLAINT

On August 3, 2016, the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force (Task Force) heard the matter.

Mr. Ekno provided an overview of the complaint and requested the Task Force to find violations. There were no speakers in support of the Complainant. Sgt. Maria Hermina Ciriaco, Legal Division, Police Department (Respondent), provided a summary of the department's position. Sgt. Ciriaco stated that Officer Anderson (Star #835) accepted the incident report from Mr. Enka and that Officer Candy Hilder, Special Victims Unit, Missing Persons, processed and denied the request for a copy of the incident report. Sgt. Ciriaco stated that the record request was denied pursuant to California Government Code, Section 6254 (f), in order to protect the victim of a crime and to avoid the disclosure of protected medical information included in the report. However, Sgt. Ciriaco could not provide an explanation as to reason for the delay in responding to the request for records. There were no speakers in support of the Respondent. A question and answer period followed. The Respondent and Complainant were provided the opportunity for rebuttals.

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSION OF LAW

Based on the testimony and evidence presented, the Task Force finds that a violation of Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Sections 67.21 (a), (b), (c), and e, occurred.

P10

August 8, 2016

Sunshine Ordinance Task Force i Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place Room 244 San Francisco, CA 94102-4689

Sunshine Ordinance Task Force File No.: 16053 El<no v. Hilder

Hello Task Force,

I was listening to the audio of your August 3, 2016 meeting and noticed that you are requesting a Lieutenant and two officers to appear at a future meeting all over the release of one police report, who will bill the tax payers' overtime to attend. Do the tax payers have any idea what a waste of money you people are costing them? The Sergeant who appeared was probably there on overtime as well, a good 5 hours.

Sworn members of the Police Department already have the Police Commission and OCC to oversee them. They do not need your oversight. I suggest you request the civilians that work specifically to address Sunshine request at the SFPD to appear before you. I would imagine it is against the Police Officers' Bill of Rights for sworn members to have.to submit to inquiries from your task force without a subpoena or Union Representation.

Signed

Anonymous

cc: Matier & Ross SF Examiner

P12

DECISION AND ORDER OF DETERMINATION

The Sunshine Ordinance Task Force finds that Officer Candy Hilder and the Police Department violated Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Sections 67.21 (a), (b), (c) and (e), by failing to provide public records without unreasonable delay; failing to provide public records within 10 days or 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; failing to assist a requester in identifying the existence, form and nature of any records or information maintain or assist a requester in directing a request to the proper office or staff person; and failing to send an authorized representative of the custodian of the public record able to explain the basis for the decision to withhold the records requested.

The motion PASSED by the following vote:

Ayes: 8 - Eldon, J. Wolf, Tesfai, Maass, Cannata, Fischer, Hinze, B. Wolfe Noes: 0 - None Absent: 1 - Chopra Excused 1 - Hyland

Chair Wolfe referred the matter to the Compliance and Amendments Committee and requested that Officer Anderson (Star #835), Officer Candy Hilder, and Lt. Kathryn Waaland attend the meeting to explain why the requested records cannot be provided and/or provide the requested records (Police Report No. 160094640). If applicable, it should be taken into consideration that the requester originally submitted the incident report and may have certain privileges in the matter. In addition, please provide information regarding the month long delay in responding to the records request (Records requested on February 8, 2016, and February 25, 2016. Denial of request for records not provided until March 29, 2016).

Bruce Wolfe, Chair ~ Sunshine Ordinance T~JForce c. Nicholas Colla, Deputy City Attorney

Joel Ekno, Complainant Lt. Kathryn Waaland, Police Department, Respondent Officer Anderson (Star #835), Police Department, Respondent Officer Candy Hilder, Police Department, Respondent Sgt. Maria Hermina Ciriaco, Police Department, Respondent

P11


DENNIS J. HERRERA

City Attorney

TO: Sunshine Ordinance Task Force

FROM: Nicholas Colla Deputy City Attorney

DATE: July 28, 2016

OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY

NICHOLAS COLLA

Deputy City Attorney

Direct Dial: Email:

(415) 554-3819 nicholas.colla @sfgov.org

RE: Complaint No. 16053 - Elmo v. Officer Candy I-Iilder of the San Francisco Police Depaiiment

COMPLAINT

Complainant Joel Ekno ("Complainant") alleges that Officer Candy Bilder ("Officer Bilder") of the San Francisco Police Department ("SFPD") violated public records laws by failing to timely/adequately respond to his February 8 and February 25, 2016 public records requests.

COMPLAINANT FILES COMPLAINT

On June 3, 2016, Complainant filed this complaint with the Task Force alleging that SFPD failed to timely respond to his request for public records.

JURISDICTION

SFPD is a City depaiiment subject to the provisions of the Sunshine Ordinance governing public records. SFPD does not contest jurisdiction to hear this complaint.

APPLICABLE STATUTORY SECTION(§)

Section 67 of the San Francisco Administrative Code:

o Section 67.21 governs responses to a public records request.

o Section 67.26 governs withholding of records.

o Section 67.27 governs written justification for withholding ofrecords.

Section 6250 et seq. of the Cal. Gov't Code ("CJPRA")

o Section 6254 describes the types of documents not subject to public record request laws.

APPLICABLE CASE LAW

e none

BACKGROUND

On February 1, 2016, Complainant filed a missing person report with SFPD. On February 8, 2016 filed a request for a copy of the February 1, 2016 incident report to SFPD's

Fox PLAZA . 1390 MARKET STREET, 6TH FLOOR . SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94102-5408 RECEPTION: (415) 554-3800 · FACSIMILE: (415) 437-4644

n:\codenf\as2014\9600241\0l l 24815.doc

P13


MEMORANDUM


TO: DATE: PAGE: RE:

Sunshine Ordinance Task Force July 28, 2016 2 Complaint No. 16053 -Elmo v. Officer Candy Bilder of the San Francisco Police Department

Report Management Section. Complainant alleges that he never received a response to his February 8, 2016 request.

On February 25, 2016, Complainant renewed his request for February 1, 2016 incident report by sending another request form to SFPD's Report Management Section.

On March 29, 2016, SFPD issued a response to Complainant in which it denied his request for the February 1, 2016 incident report, citing CPRA Section 6254(£) as a basis for denial.

On June 3, 2016, Complainant filed this complaint with the Task Force.

On June 21, 2016, in response to the filing of this complaint, SFPD Lieutenant Kathryn Waaland ("Lt. Waaland") emailed a letter to the Task Force in which she stated in part as follows:

[SFPD's] Special Victim's Unit declined to release the subject incident report pursuant to Government Code section 6254(£), which exempts from disclosure records of complaints to, investigations conducted by, intelligence information or security procedures of, and investigatory or security files compiled by local police agencies.

QUESTIONS THAT MIGHT ASSIST IN DETERMINING FACTS

0 Did Complainant eventually obtain any of the desired documents?

o Can SFPD provide an explanation as to why it never responded to the February 8, 2016 request for records and why it didn't respond to the February 25, 2016 request until March 29, 2016?

o Did SFPD ever elaborate as to why it was withholding responsive records?

JLEGAJL ISSUES/JLEGAJL DETERMINATIONS

o Did SFPD violate Administrative Code Section 67.21(b) by failing to provide Complainant with records responsive to his request in a timely manner?

o Did SFPD follow the protocol for withholding records under Adminstrative Code Sections 67.26, 67.27, and CPRA Section 6254(£)?

P14 n:\codent\as2014\9600241\01124815 .doc


MIEMO~ANDUM

TO: DATE: PAGE:

Sunshine Ordinance Task Force July 28, 2016 3


RE: Complaint No. 16053 -Elmo v. Officer Candy Bilder of the San Francisco Police Department

CONCLUSION

THE 1

TASK FORCE FINDS THE FOLLOWING FACTS TO BE TRUE:

THE TASK FORCE FINDS THE ALLEGED VIOLATIONS TO BE TRUE OR NOT TRUE.

* * *

P15 n:\codenf\as201419600241101124815.doc


MEMORANDUM

TO: DATE: PAGE:

Sunshine Ordinance Task Force July 28, 2016 4


RE: Complaint No. 16053 - Elmo v. Officer Candy Bilder of the San Francisco Police Department

CHAPTER 67, SAN FRANCISCO AlDlMINJ[§TRATIVE COlDlE (SUNSHINE ORlDlINANCE)

SEC. 67.21. PROCESS FOR GAINING ACCESS TO PUBLIC RECORlDlS; AlDlMINISTRATIVE 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 umeasonable delay, and without requiring an appointment, permit the public record, or any segregable p01iion 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 of records relating to a particular subject or questions with enough specificity to enable a requester to identify records in order to make a request under (b ). A custodian of any public record, when not in possession of the record requested, shall assist a requester in directing a request to the proper office or staff person.

SEC. 67.26. WITHHOLlDlING OF RlECORlDlS

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 p01iion 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 publicrecords 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 WITHHOLlDlING.

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 thatauthority.

P16 n:\codenf\as2014\9600241101124815.doc


MEMO~ANDUM


TO: DATE: PAGE: RE:

Sunshine Ordinance Task Force July 28, 2016 5 Complaint No. 16053 -Elmo v. Officer Candy Bilder of the San Francisco Police Depaiiment

(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, suppmiing that position.

( d) When a record being requested contains information, most of which is exempt from disclosure under the California Public Records Act and this Aiiicle, 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.

CAJL. PURJLIC RECORDS ACT (GOVT. CODE §§ 6250, ET SEQ.)

SEC 6254

Except as provided in Sections 6254.7 and 6254.13, nothing in this chapter shall be construed to require disclosure of records that are any of the following:

( c) Personnel, medical, or similar files, the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

n:\codenf\as2014\9600241\01124815.doc P17

File No. 16053

Joel Elmo V Police Department

Date filed with SOTF: 6/3/16

Contacts information:

§lll!n§JffillR11.e On:l!Ilmmce Ta§lk lForce Complaint §11.llmman)'

Joel Elmo, 371 Chestnut St., San Francisco CA 94133 (Complainant) Briseida Banuelos, Police Department (Respondent)

lFile No. 16053: Complaint filed by Joel Elmo against the Police Department 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 mam1er.

Date public record was requested by Complainant: February 8, 2016, and February 25, 2016 Or Date of alleged violation/incident:

Date of Response by Police Depaiiment: March 25, 2016

Administrative Summary if applicable:

The Complainant submitted 2 request for records that were not responded to for over one month. The denial of the request for records cited California Govermnent Code 6254(8) that reads as follows:

6254.8. Every employment contract between a state or local agency and any public official or public employee is a public record which is not subject to the provisions of Sections 6254 and 6255.

Complaint attached.

P18

EDWIN M. LEE MAYOR

VIA EMAIL

Mr. Victor Young



1245 3R0 Street San Francisco, California 94158

July 27, 2016

Sunshine Ordinance Task Force 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Pl., Room 244 San Francisco, CA 94102

TONEY D. CHAPLIN ACTING CHIEF OF POLICE

Re: Notice of Hearing of August 3, 2016 for File No. 16053 - Complaint filed by Mr. Joel Elmo v. The San Francisco Police Department

Dear Mr. Young,

The San Francisco Police Department, ("SFPD") Special Victims Unit ("SVU") submits the following Response to the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force ("SOTF").

SOTF Additional Information Request:

1. "Written documentation of existing authority in code or statute that allows for the withholding of the specific record request.

2. Written detennination that the records requested or record type falls under Govermnent Code Section 6254(f).

3. Can a redacted version of the record be provided?

4. When, if ever, will the requested records be available to the public? (when the case is closed?)."

SVU Response:

The supporting documents for denial would be Department General Order ("DGO") 3.16 "Release of Police Reports," California Government Codes: 6254 (f), which exempts from disclosure records of complaints to, investigations conducted by, intelligence info1mation or security procedures of, and investigatory or security files compiled by local police agencies, and on the basis of privacy, pursuant to section 6254(c) of the Public Records Act (California Government Code sec. 6254(c)) and Aliicle I, sec. 1 of the California Constitution because disclosure of this infonnation would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy.

P19

The only redacted report possible for release would include date, time and location. All other information is not releasable per the above codes.

Thank you for your courtesy in this regaid.

Sincerely,

c-\ I

//c___-

LT. KATHRYN W AALAND Commanding Officer Legal Division

P20

----·

§allil lFlIDll'l~ lP'@fui«!@,Dl@pCJlilimlil@mlfr

GlENERAJL ORDIER

RJEJLJEA§JE OF POILilCIE RIEJPORT§

l JPOUCT

Thls fij)fder is @rafted t@ tC@mply with the l?lillblli\C JRee<1J>roo Ad, C©lllif@~ Gcvemment Code Sedia:Jm. 6254, et seq., the Sm &mdse@ S'llmShlne Oird~~e, Admbrlsmtive Code, Clblapta' 67, md other applkable sbl.re md loeall fa.w~ These statutes embmlly a p«JJUcy of :releasing htfol!.'l!lrulti(Q)n mtless ireleMe w<1»mdl endanger citizens, faw enforeement p~nnel @r a fa.w tenf((!)rceement mvestigatiOlil8 !bill' ct!OMbihde 3l1l 1!JllU1l.eeessey mvasfon llJJf priV.!lCf o • 'fhis me~ 1l:JMli Mrest,,. ~ecidmt and mcidmt rep(Olfis mu.st be released mtleoo Ute discloom~ wowd a-use the dmgem menti@ned m the faw. J[n al!l ~etS, ilie bmdm fu3; @lill !ilie Depm:rtm.ent t(!) justify nondiscl@sme.

II. PROCEDURES

A. ™FORMATION WHICH l\IIA Y BE lNTIHHELD. The Depa:rttnent may withhold nos. 1 ~ 8 below, except that :release shall occur where, upon weighing the public interest for and against disclosure, the public interest favors disclosure. If dC!cwnents are withheld, the Department must explain in factual terms how the public interest would be harmed. [S.F. Admin. Code § 67.27 (a)]. The information in nos. 9~12 sruuLll m«»t be released..

1. fufonnation that would endanger the safety of €! person involved. in .w. investigation. (Cal. Gov. Cooe 6254 (f))

2. Information that would endanger law enforcerm:::nt personnel. (S.F. Admin. Code,§ 67.24 (d))

3. Information that would endanger the successful completion of an investigation, but only when the prospect of enforcement proe~gs is ooncrete and definite. (Cal. Gov. Code 6254 (f))

4. Secret investigative techniques or procedures where, on the facts of the case, the public interest in nondisclosme clearly outweighs the public interest served by disclosure. (S.F. Adrnin. Code, § 67.24 (d); Cal Gov. Code § 6255)

1

P21

DG03.16 rfJ9/'11/94

5. Information :regID"ding the lidenti:l:y of confidential inform~ts. (C.rJJl. Gov. Code 6254 (f), 6255; S.F. Admm. Code, § 67.24 (d))

6. The name of any victim of a sexual asstiu.lt who· specifically :reqlll~ts that H not be disclosed. (Cru. Gov. Code 6254 (f) (2)), DGO 6.16, ~ AssawitS)

7. Medical or other information constituting an unwarranted invasion of privacy. (Cru. Gov. Code 6254 (c); S.F. Adm.in. Code, § 67.25 (d))

3. . The nmne m:id ,address of ~y person d~ purnusint to WeJiare and. Jfnstimtions Code Section 5150 where disclosW'e would constitute ian

unw~anted invasion of privacy. (Cal. Gov. Code 6254 (c))

9. The name or address of a juvenile who is a. suspect or who has been arrested or detained, or my information which might lead to the identity of a juvenile who is a suspect or who has been arrested o:r detained may not be released without a court order. ('IN'G v. Superior Court (1971) 4 C.3d 767).

10. Vehicle collision :reports involving death or personal injury except as prqvided by California Vehicle Code Section 2001.2 (see DGO 9.0.2, Vehicle Accidents).

111.. Any report regardirig clilld abuse made oonfiden.tial by Penal Code Sections 11167 and 11167.5, or any report regarding assaultive or ~busive oonduct nmde oonfidmtial by Penru Cod(2 Section 11163.2 (b).

12 The dllddr~ of my victim «:>f ~ ~al MS~:rut (Cal. Gov, Code 6254 (f) (2))

.;,,

.·

2

P22

·___.-'

B. INFORlVLATION 1HAT MUST BE RELEASED

DG03.16 09/21/94

1. DURING THE lPENDENCY OF AN INVESTIGATION OR PROSECUTION. The Department retains the discretion to withhold mtjdent :reports good other documents during the pendency of an imrestigation. The following infonn.ati.on, however, must be released, so long as release .is not prohibited in Section A above.

©J.. In.formation that must be released to the public

(1) Individual arrested, including nrune, address., ocrupation, physical description. ·

(2) Facts surrotmding arrest, includin~ but not limited to, time and date of. .ur~t and boold:n~ location of the aH'est., m:nount o{ b.rul, location of arY-estee or time and m~er of rele~e.

(3) charges brought, including outstmding warrants and p.!lrole or probation holds. ·

(4) Time, substance and location of all complaints or requests for assistance and time and nature or r~ponse thereto, including; where an incident report has been made, the time, date iill.d location of oceurrence0 and the time and date of the report.

(5) Victim's name, age and address, ~cept if victim or victim's address ~ot be disclosed ;gs demled in Section A above.

(6) Factual ciraoo:!Stm.res sun:ounding the aime or incident and a general description of any injuries, property or weaporu; .involved.

b. Additiorutl information that must be JCeleased ibo victims, their authorized representatives, and their i.nsu.ranre carriers:

(1) Na.mes and addresses of all pe.rsoru; involved m OX' witnesses other than confidential infon:mru.w. ·

(2) Description of any property i:nvo1ved; date, time and location of incident.

. 3

P23

DG03.16 00/21/94

(3) Diagrams, sfcatemen'i:S or the parties irrvolved1 stafcem<e:nts of all witnesses o.ther thm confidentiru informants.

2 AFT.ER nm CASE IS CLOSED. Wh@n the prospect of.an 12mo:rcement action has been terminated, the Sunshine Ordi:ruuu::e req'llilres complete disclosme, except that it still per.m.its the Department to withhold the follo'f!Ving [S.F. Adm. Code,§ 67.24 (d)]:

. . a. Witnesses names rund addresses (alphabetical .letters should be

substituted), except that state law :requires release when this information is requested by a victim, the victim:"s rep:resenta.tive Ori' ru1t

insu:rance earner that might be liable. (Cru. Gov. Code 6254 (f))

b. Personal and otherwise private Worm@!.tion umdated to the law enforcement action.

c. Identity of a confidential sc:nn:ce. .

d. Secret investigative teclmique or procedme.

e. _Information that would endanger law .enforcement personnel.

C PERSONS WHO MAY AUTHORIZE RELEASE. The following persons may . authorize the release of police reports but must oonsult with the Department Legal Division in cases that are not routine:

1. 'The investigator or the offi.c€r=m=cltarge of ilie tmit Msigined the cru;e.

2 'The Offioer=in~ge of the Reoords Section or the offireJL designated to release :reports when the case is not assigned to !l!lfi mvestigeative wtit.

3. The PUblic Affairs Officer,~ consultation with the assigned investigator (when possible).

4. The Operations Center (during m:m=business hours) after oonsultation with the assigned investig!itor or the Public Affailrs Officer (when possible).

4

P24

··..../

·-·

D. TIJY.lES -OF RELEASE

DG03.16 09/21/94

1. GENERAL PUBLIC. The general public may request in wrifutg the release of a report during normal business hours 0800 to 1600 hrs. Monday through Friday, holidays excluded or through ilie m~.

2. NEWS MEDIA. The news media may :request repo:rt:s in the same xrumner as the general public or through the Public Affairs Office. If the Public Affailrs Office iis closed, the media should make the request at the Operations Center. The release will be made consistent 'With the ability of the Depart:I:ne:nt to do so without undue disruption of normal procedures.

JE. RELEASE AUTHORIZATION. The person who authorizes the :release of a report to the public o:r the news media is :responsible fo:r insuring that the items listed in this order are excluded from the report or !ll'e not discernible.

F. MEDIA JNTERVIEWS. Nothing in this order restricts an officer from providing the public or the news media orally with information on a case in which he/she is involved consistent with this order and DGO 8.09, Media Relations Policy.

G. COMPUTER DATA. See DGO 10.08, Use of Computers.

5

P25

EDWIN M. LEE MAYOR

VIA EMAIL

Mr. Victor Young



1245 3Ro Street San Francisco, California 94158

June 21, 2016

Sunshine Ordinance Task Force 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Pl., Room 244 San Francisco, CA 94102

TONEY D. CHAPLIN ACTING CHIEF OF POLICE

Re: File No. 16053 - Complaint filed by Mi·. Joel Elmo v. The San Francisco Police Depaiiment

Dear Mr. Young,

The San Francisco Police Depaiiment's ("SFPD") Special Victims Unit declined to release the subject incident repmi pursuant to Government Code section 6254(£), which exempts from disclosure records of complaints to, investigations conducted by, intelligence information or security procedures of, and investigatory or security files compiled by local police agencies.

Thank you.

P26

Sincerely,

Commanding Officer Legal Division

c\

SUNSHINE ORDINANCIE

TASI< FORCE

June 29, 2016

Joel Elmo 371 Chestnut St. San Francisco CA 94133

City Hall

1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett !Place, Room 244 ·

San Francisco 94102-4689

Tel. No. (415) 554-7724

FaJ{ No. (415) 554-7854

TDD/TTV No. (415) 554-5227

RE: Sunshine Ordinance Task Force - Joel Elmo v. Police Department - File No. 16053

Dear Joel Elmo,

The Sunshine Ordinance Task Force is in receipt of a response from the Police Department regarding your above mentioned complaint case.

The Respondent was notified of your complaint, in an attempt to mediate and avoid a hearing before the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force. The attached document(s) are the Respondent's response/records you requested.

Please inform the SOTF Office as to whether the document provided by the Respondent satisfies your request or if you wish to proceed with a hearing before the SOTF. If you have any questions please contact me.

Sincerely,

Victor Young Administrator Sunshine Ordinance Task Force

http://www.sfgov.org/sunshine/

P27

SUl\JSHll\JE ORDINANCE

TASK FORCE

July 14, 2016

Joel Elmo 371 Chestnut St. San Francisco CA 9413 3

Citv Hall

1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, Room 244


Tel. No. (415) 554-7724

Fa>C No. (415) 554-7854

TDD/TTV No. (415) 554-5227

RE: Sunshine Ordinance Task Force - Notice of Hearing-August 3, 2016 Joel Elmo v. Police Department - File No. 16053

Dear Joel Elmo,

You are receiving this notice because you are named as a Complainant in the following complaints scheduled before the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force to hear the merits of the complaint. Your attendance is required for this meeting/hearing.

Date: August 3, 2016

Location: City Hall, Room 408

Time: 4:00 PM (6:00 PM Special Order)

'fhe hearings on JFile No. 16053 win not begin earlier than 6:00 p.m.

JFile No. 16053: Complaint filed by Joel Elmo against Officer Candy Bilder and the Police Department 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.

Documentation (evidence supporting/disputing complaint)

For a document to be considered, it must be received at least five (5) working days before the hearing.

For inclusion in the agenda packet, supplemental/supporting documents must be received by 5:00 pm, July 27, 2016.

http ://www.sfgov.org/sunshine/

P28

If you have any questions please contact me.

Sincerely,

Victor Young Administrator Sunshine Ordinance Task Force

P29

July 5t1i, 2016

RE: Sunshine Ordinance Task Force - Joel Elmo v. San Francisco Police Department- File No. 16053

Dear Mr. Young,

This letter regards complaint case Joel Elmo v. San Francisco Police Depaiiment- File No.

16053. I appreciate the effo1is made to mediate and resolve this complaint but I am not

satisfied with the Respondent's response and would like to proceed with a hearing.

The Respondent states that they are not required to release any documents because of CA

Govermnent Code 6254(f). If this was accurate then the San Francisco Police Depaiiment

would never be required to release any records to anyone. Their response is also

incompatible with the existence of the Sunshine Ordinance and is yet one more example of

a bizarre recalcitrance regarding the release of this paiiicular public record.

This public record (SFPD Repmi # 160094640) pertains to a missing persons repmi that I

filed. I was personally contacted by the investigating officers when the missing person was

located. I cannot see how CA Government Code 6254(f) could be interpreted to mean that

a person who files a report has no right to access said report.

I would also like to add that the Respondent failed to address their disregard of the two

records requests submitted in early and late February of this year. I only received a response

at the end of March which included both of my requests that were clearly marked with an

"Immediate Disclosure Request" stamp. Since they have provided no actual legal

justification for their disregard of California and San Francisco Public Records law, I am

left to wonder if a report was ever even written.

Best Regards,

Joel Elmo

P30

Cu1rµlaim111t Narrf::l (0,c;lirnal}

Ostti uf F~equt;;ol:

SU\'SI Il\T OHDl\A\CE L\SK H)!ZCE Dr. (\1rltnn B. (il1od lcn Pb cc. Room 2-l ~. St\11 F ranciscn CA l)c} ! f).2

Tel. Hl 5) 554-772,c.\: Fl1.'\ H ! 5) 55c\-7(15cJ

SliXSHl!\E ORDl:\AXCE COi\1PLAl;\T .FORi\l

Elrno

6/01 /20 '16

Plto"ciSt: idenlif•,r l11e Cil/ CifnL:k1l(s) c.111d/u1 Errplu·,-ee(t:) ''~pin,c;l 11\'ltum the r;urrµ\,jirJt i:: bc;ifl~J !llddti: SFPD Officer CE1ncly Hilclor

f,)

Ple:;J:::e itlenl.ify llJ!:O Officic1!:;' c111d/ur E1rµluyec;::.' 8u:.:J1d, Cun-.11•.i:osiun. T21sk F:Jrce, Dep;;Jflll'.!:!fll m 'Jll1er l;'pe :Jf ar.p:mcy.

SFPD Report P·/lancigement :3ecUon

f\l;.rn:e :jf Un~ Cu:otudim1 of Recur:J:o ta;::l\e:.\ wilil pruvidi11q llte requec:tc;d i11fnrmatk111:

l?I [~]

D

/\lle~Jtod '.1 iulatio11 uf public recurd;:: access /'.lle:.Jed failute lu µrovide i11furmc1lion i11 ~1 li1rto\y· 1ranner i11 acv:i1da11cto •NilJ1 llm µ1wvi:oior1::; uf llie Surd1i11e Ordina111;e 1\lle::Jed \1i:A1tiu11 uf a µublic rnec;tir 1q

Plea:::e indicate dale uf meetin:,J if known

Their ne:mie is illegible on all of the paperwork that they have sent me.

Plec1rn df!::•1;1ibe l11to L1lle9t:d viul<.1tiu11. u~e mlditiurnil pciper if rieedt::J. Plea::oe allar:\1 cifl'," re\tJ','cilll ducu1renlaliu11 •i\•hid1 ;;uµpurl::; yuur co1nµlai11t.

~}:_i) ''.ill ·: :~ ~ I·· J/>~ .~ 1n;s1y· i:} 1 1.~ ,JI t:i.ir 1 JI . .JTl< '-) Liy . .!.' ··1,~1 :.r1 CJ~J ~.; .r J './ . r·;_l ::-1'. :_,,·it 0: ~Ff ·..: J J ' :i:: . J .: t f -~ :J! .::n h• :-1") 1 .. :r i J:..··1~1.I] . ·_··1cn~-: Ii f·J: !J.I j ::: ·.;; -~-)r :1.=.

/\re )'ULI rt::que:o!inu a µu!Jlic iltJ;;irin~J bc:fure llie Su11:0!1i11e Ordina11ce Tci;;;k Fu1ce? 1

.•'' yes LJ nu

If yes, please provide 1 or more preferred rnethod(s) of contact:

I I Pl1u11e:

D E!hii\: [l Ollier:

. / I '.'\()!KE: ITl\S I J(i,.\l. 1:; I 1 .. W.\ i.\ I Ill:\ 111.\ I I'.' n:1 J\'ll ll.I) \'.. 111.:-; .\I JI JI{ I.:; s1:-,l i . \ l'l. ! I ll.il' 1'1 Jl.11.'Y I \t .tl)\' I'.' :;r.:u.n:t. I I u 1.11:;1 ·1.11s1 ;iu. 1.)c.1 ll .I·'. 1111. f.',\l.11· I JI( NL·\ I 'I JI H. It' IUTI iltl l~ .\l' I ,\;--;1 J 1111. ~l.t>:'.'111:·~1. l I[{ lJl>L\:ll I.. :·.l L\ 1U UZS t.!1- 1111. I'll!. LI C /..!·'.I. c-:u I l{Li..tl. 'Iii.LI l I U l'i{I J\' iill. l'l. l{'.'I 1>L\I.

IUI..'-~ I ll·YL\lj 17'11.11\.\L\ I iUi'i .. \:·il.l {'1.1;•.H'L.'\I>: I .. \.'i Is ?ll.\Y 11.1.: .. 1/dN .\~;:y .. ;•, \1111 I". llU\Vl:\'l.l{. l·ill··'. l'l'(tJl'll''. ; .. ;111w1:\1i ic>;ll l'll.tJL'l.<.:s1;·:1 il.Jl· .'\ I lf:..\l{J;~t i IZ IJ)l.'LS I. :\ IU .LL\ULI. ; .. 1 L. \; .. ;:-; I.JI· t.'I t(-~ L\l' I IS R IJ't t?-, J:·.1 L~: lJUJ. l'l.L\SE :\0 I}_ lll.H rt l E SO ll .\ll.'11 C\IS IR.\T(ll{ \\ ILL :\OT

!UJ1.\Cl' .\:"\\ l:"\HHOL\111):"\ l'IW\'WED I;\ TllE"l·: st:11:1JISSIO:\S.

P31

6254.B. Every employment contract between a state or local agency and any public official or public employee is a public record which

is not subject to the provisions of Sections 6254 and 6255.

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.

P32

Name:

Address:

!I\.l!\!EDIATE DISCLOSURE REQCEST

'"'EQUEST FOR POLICE REPOF

IT IS MANDATORY TO HA VE A SELF ADDRESSED LEGAL SIZE STAMPED ENVELOPE FOR YOUR REPORT TO BE PROCESSED.

Mail Request To:

Joel Elmo

371 Chestnut Street

San Francisco Police Department Report Management Section 1245 3rd Street San Francisco, CA 94158

City, State, Zip: San Francisco, CA, 94133-2422

-----------~--------~~'-----------------------------fold here----------------------------------------------------------;;~----3

Contact Phone: ( 4 1 5 602-6610

SF P l. R t # 1 6 o o 9 4 6 4 o 01ce epor :------~-----------

. . Charlene Ammann Name of Party Listed m Report:---·---.---------

Date of Birth: Month~_O_l~/Day_2_l_!Year 1963

Your Interest In This Incident: I reported this individual as missing.

Type of Incident: Missing Person

Date/Time of Occurrence: 2/01/2016 - lO:OOam

c.·~· :;:,,.(/i I ({) :';

O:>

0 u

Location of Occurrence: 600 Block of SAN JOSE AV - 673 San Jose Ave, SF CA 94110

Vehicle Involved: (License Plate Number I State)-------------------

I declare this statement to be true and correct:

02/03/2016

~ Signature Date Note: VEHICLE ACCIDENT REPORTS ARE ONLY PREPARED FOR HIT & RUN, DRUNK DRIVING AND PERSONAL

INJURY CASES. All request for copies of police reports will be handled in the order they are received and will be delivered to

requester by return mail ONLY. Some reports are restricted and/or inaccessible.

Requester ID/DL: D 4 3 O 3 9 O 3 RMS Signoff ___ _

P33 Date: ______ _

/

I

Name:

Address:

-REQUEST FOR POLICE REPORT

IT IS MANDATORY TO HA VE A SELF ADDRESSED LEGAL SIZE STAMPED ENVELOPE FOR YOUR REPORT TO BE PROCESSED.

Mail Request To: San Francisco Police Department Report Management Section 1245 3rd Street San Francisco, CA 94158

City, State, Zip:

---------------------------------------------------fold here------------------------------------------------------------------ -

Contact Phone: ( 4' ( S-- ) 6-0 L- l£ l 0

SF Police Report#: _I t_O_o_cr,~-~i-f;_6~'t~· D ______ _

Name of Party Listed in Report: C /,vo.,-,..-/ e-/1-L JM11-i-Ccn/L /;J;e.,[ fiK/-o

Date of Birth: Month.__.f~· i_~!Day /, 3 /Year {C{f?6 - Jed &t::.110 e>l z._t l'l.6j - lkM!vie .A.vt/\."-<U\ /\,

Your Interest In This Incident:

Type of Incident:

Dateffime of Occurrence:

Location of Occurrence: - I ;

Vehicle Involved: (License Plate Number l State) _________________ _

I declare this-statement to be true and correct:

_C),a(/~~- -- _ 1.IU/jr6 _ ....... :;;:;:~ . . - . _· . . . ·:

~/Note: VEHICLEAC!::::ORTS ARE ONLY P~PARED FOR HIT & RUN, DRUNK D~: AND PERSONAL

_INJURY CASES. All request for copies of police-reports will be h~dli:d in the order they are received and wilt b-e delivered to

requester by return mail ONLY. Some rep~rts are restricted and/or inaccessible.

Requestor ID/DL: D 'tJ 0 3 q 0 .3 RMS Signoff ___ _

Date: ______ _

P34

/

~)-

[~~~

i~.}~ '--" <W' tt::m ~

\;)'

()

'\.·· '.!,.

\.

f .. } '?L.

·~~ "? ill! ~t,,, . ...,.,_ 00

'tj~ 03

0

12 J:il -<!) 0 .......,

;:

N N "tj-N

I M -M :::;; ..-< "tj-0\ t> <i:: ~ u ...,

[/] ~

0 1:j Q Ul i::: ....... ..., Q Ul g <!)

,..q !-<

(:) µ;, ,....; g t--M \./)

P35

-Rep1J))rt# /60 c,ytL( 6C/O ----->=-~------

C AlfJ #

(IF NEEDED)

DATE: 2-S-~ /0

I kindly ask that the officer in charge please review the following SFPD report.

R~quested by: /)(ccf?i /~~ l/

Approval Officer: OFC C,~NDY H!l.DH~ #2/'( c:.":;.ce10LvtcT1:·J;S U\-!\ 1 Star#: 'J! (._. "-J.t\

D APPROVED - REDACTED

D. APPROVED - NO REDACTION, NEEDED

rXi DISAPPROVED i:AW Your assistance is greatly appreciated.; please return. to

·---------- --- ---ctii:n:einformatiou-Servicesi-Unit-/-RECORDS:----- -- · --If you.have any questions or conce:rn,s, please contact me ext .. #. x 7.z er?-

Thank you,

(;~~/t(~.· 'CISU, PHQ, FlRSTFLooz;

. For Crime Information Services Unit employees only below this line.

D NO approval or sanitize needed

Date Mailed Out: P36 By: --------

EDWIN M. LEE MAYOR

POLICE DEPARTMENT

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO HEADQUARTERS 1245 3R0 STREET

SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94158

D We are unable to locate the requested information in our files.

D We are unable to determine if the requested documents are in our files without further data.

GREG SUHR CHIEF OF POLICE

You may resubmit your request, provided the following information is included with your request.

D Case Number (if known).

D Names of persons listed in the police report.

D Type of incident (if accident, include license plate number).

D Date, time and/or location of the incident.

D Motor vehicle accidents, when there is no injury reported at the time of the accident, are generally not investigated, therefore no police report was prepared.

D State law prohibits the release of the requested documents.

D This file has been purged or destroyed.

D Please provide client Released I Signature.

D You have provided a CAD number. Enclosed is a form to request a CAD Report from 1011 Turk Street.

~Disapproved.

D Other:

P37

Prepared by: C~ CISU, RECORDS PHQ, FIRST FLOOR

/

:-----"-----

··--..:: __ _

RTEE

Case !\lumber: /~ ,' , r,/ . ~ . ·, ' I ~-~-!_~---

Case numbers are assigned to an investigato1· IJased

on facts obtained dur·ing t!1e Initial investigation,

D Company A (Central) 315-2400

D Company B (Southern) 575-6000

D Company C (Bayview) 671-2300 Dr-· D ,,__,ompany (M" . ) \'·llSSIOll J::h:8-~LLnn

JJ ...,J IUtJ

D Company E (No1thern) 614-3400

D Company F (Park) 242-3000

D Company G (Richmond) 666-8000

10 Company H (Ingleside) 404-4000

D Company I (Taraval) 759-3100

D Company J (Tenderloin) 345-7300

Please contact the investigation unit cllecked above to provide additional information not available during initial police report

.:~ormation such as:

I. I

n Ser/al numbers of lost or stolen items Video evidence of tl1e incident f\larne(s) of possible witness(es) or suspect(s)

f i \_

~- ----- I

'· ;!'ficer's f\larne an~i---N;- SFfj~ll~~-(;~~.;;3;-~

IFrnm: Se rut: To: Cc:

SOTF, (BOS) Thursday, July 14, 2016 3:34 PM Banuelos, Briseida (POL); Waaland, Kathryn (POL) Colla, Nicholas (CAT); Calvillo, Angela (BOS)

Subject: SOTF - Additional Information Requested - File No. 15053 Joel Ekno V Police Department -August3, 2016

Lt. Waaland:

My apology for not including you in the original notice of hearing for August 3, 2016 (listed below). Upon review of your response Chair Wolfe has requested additional information that will assist the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force in their

review of the complaint.

1. Written documentation of existing authority in code or statute that allows for the withholding of the specific

record request.

2. Written determination that the records requested or record type falls under Government Code Section

6254(f).

3. Can a redacted version of the record be provided?

4. When, if ever, will the requested records be available to the public? (when the case is closed?)

To summarize, the Task Force is looking for additional details as to how the Police Department determined that the

requested record falls under Government Code, Section 6254(f) and who made that determination.

Thank you for your attention to this request.

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: August 3, 201 6


Time: 4:00 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 -SIPIECIAl OIRDIEIR -The hearings on File No. 16053 will not begin earlier than 6:00 p.m.

file No. 16053: Complaint filed by Joel Ekno against Officer Candy Hilder and the Police Department 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.

For a document to be considered, it must be received at least five (5) working days before the hearing (see attached Public Complaint Procedure).


Victor Voung Administrator Sunshine Ordinance Task Force 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, City Hall., Room 244 San Francisco CA 94102 phone 415-554-7724 fax 415-554-5163 [email protected] I 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 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.

P4o

Frnm: Sen~: To:

Cc:

SOTF, (BOS) Thursday, July 14, 2016 3:00 PM 'geoffrea morris'; Moses, Toye (CWP); Chilvers, Deborah (PUC); 'Public Records'; 'Ray'; DickEndrizzi, Regina (ECN); Hilder, Candy (POL); Banuelos, Briseida (POL); Kilshaw, Rachael (POL) Colla, Nicholas (CAT); Calvillo, Angela (BOS)

Subject: SOTF - Notice of Hearing- Sunshine Ordinance Task Force -August 3, 2016 SOTF - Complaint Procedure 2014-11-05.pdf Attachments:

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: August 3, 2016


Time: 4:00 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. 16040: Complaint filed by Geoffrea Morris against Executive Director Toye Moses and the

South east Community Facility Commission for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine

Ordinance), Section 67. 7, by failing to provide an agenda description that is meaningful and sufficiently

clear to alert a person of average intelligence and education whose interests are affected by the item

and by failing to include information regarding the Sunshine Ordinance in the meeting agenda (April

20, 2016).

File No. 16046: Complaint filed by Ray Hartz against Regina Dick-Endrizzi and the Small Business

Commission for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Section 67.25(a), by

failing to respond to an Immediate Disclosure Request in a timely and/or complete manner and failing request an extension of time to respond.

File No. 16047: Complaint filed by Ray Hartz against Mark Dwight, the Office of Small Business, and the

Small Business Commission for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Sections

67.9(a) and 67.15(c), by failing to make the April 25, 2016, meeting agenda available in a timely

manner and failing to accept public comment on Agenda Items Nos. 7, 8, 9 and 10.

SIPECIAl ORDER -The hearings on File No. 16053 will not begin earlier than 6:00 p.m.

P41

!File No. 16053: Complaint filed by Joel Ekno against Officer Candy Hilder and the Police Department 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.

For a document to be considered, it must be received at least five ( 5) working days before the hearing (see attached Public Complaint Procedure).


Victor Voung Administrator Sunshine Ordinance Task Force 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, City Hall., Room 244 San Francisco CA 94102 phone 415-554-7724 fax 415-554-5163

[email protected] I www.sfbos.org

G Cf;.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 identifying information when they communicate with the Board of Supervisors and its committees. All written or oral communications that members oj 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.

P42

SUNSHINE ORDINANCE

TASK FORCE

City Hall

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


Tel. No. (415) 554-7724

Faic No. (415) 554-7854

TDD/TIV No. {415) 554-5227

November 1, 2016

Joel Elmo 3 71 Chestnut St. San Francisco CA 94133

RE: Sunshine Ordinance Task Force- Notice of Hearing- November 14, 2016 Joel Ekno v. Police Department - File No. 16053

Dear Joel Elmo,

You are receiving this notice because you are named as a Complainant in the following complaints scheduled before the Compliance and Amendments Committee of the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force to review the status of the Order of Determination. (attached)

Date: November 14, 2016


Time: 4:00 PM

!File No. 16053: Hearirng on the Status of the Order of DetermiD11ation -Complaint filed by Joel Ekno against Officer Candy Hilder and the Police Department for violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Sections 67.21 (a)(b)(c) and (e), by failing to provide public records without unreasonable delay; failing to provide public records within 10 days or 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; failing to assist a requester in identifying the existence, form and nature of any records or information maintain or assist a requester in directing a request to the proper office or staff person; and failing to send an authorized representative of the custodian of the public record able to explain the basis for the decision to withhold the records requested.

(On August 3, 2016, the SOTF heard and referred the matter to the Compliance and Amendments Committee. It was requested that that Officer Anderson (Star #835), Officer Candy Hilder, and Lt. Kathryn Waaland attend the meeting to explain why the requested records cannot

http://www.sfgov.org/sunshine/ ·

P43

From: Sent To:

Cc:

SOTF, (BOS) Tuesday, November 01, 2016 3:05 PM Banuelos, Briseida (POL); '[email protected]'; Wiener, Scott; Taylor, Adam (BOS); 'Tom Borden'; Rahaim, John (CPC); lonin, Jonas (CPC); Silva, Christine (CPC); 'Ray'; Calvillo, Angela (BOS) Somera, Alisa (BOS); Ng, Wilson (BOS); Calvillo, Angela (BOS)

Subject SOTF - Notice of Hearing - Compliance and Amendments Committee: November 14, 2016, 4:00 p.m.

Good Afternoon:

Notice is hereby given that the Compliance and Amendments Committee of the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force has scheduled hearings on the following titled complaints, 1) to issue a determination of jurisdiction; 2) to review the merits of the complaint to focus the complaint or otherwise assist the parties to the complaint; 3) to issue a report and/or recommendation to the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force and/or 4) to review the status of and ascertain compliance with the Task Force's Order of Determination.

Date: November 14, 2016


Time: 4:00 p.m.

Complaints:

File No. 16053: Hearing on the Status of the Order of Determination - Complaint filed by Joel Ekno against Officer Candy Hilder and the Police Department for violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Sections 67.21 (a)(b)(c) and (e), by failing to provide public records without unreasonable delay; failing to provide public records within 10 days or 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; failing to assist a requester in identifying the existence, form and nature of any records or information maintain or assist a requester in directing a request to the proper office or staff person; and failing to send an authorized representative of the custodian of the public record able to explain the basis for the decision to withhold the records requested.

(On August 3, 2016, the SOTF heard and referred the matter to the Compliance and Amendments Committee. It was requested that that Officer Anderson (Star #835), Officer Candy Hilder, and Lt. Kathryn Waaland attend the meeting to explain why the requested records cannot be provided and/or provide the requested records (Police Report No. 160094640). In addition, please provide information as to the reason for the one month delay in responding to the records request (Records requested on February 8, 2016, and February 25, 2016. Denial of request for records not provided until March 29, 2016)).

File No. 16063: Hearing on the Status of the Order of Determination - Complaint filed by Michael Petrelis against Supervisor Scott Wiener, Board of Supervisors, for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Section 67.25 (a), by failing .to respond to an Immediate Disclosure Request in a timely and/or complete manner.

P44

(On October 5, 2016, the SOTF heard and referred the matter to the Compliance and Amendments Committee. It was requested that the Respondent provide the remainder of the requested records and/or provide an estimate of the time needed to comply with the remainder of the public records request. )

file No. 15071: Hea11nillg orni 'i:he S'i:a'i:us of the Ornle11 of De'i:ern01ull"llatnorni - Complaint filed by Tom Borden against John Rahaim and the Planning Department, for violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Sections 67.21 (c) and 67.27, by failing to provide assistance in identifying the existence, form, and nature of any record and failing to provide justification for withhold/redacting records.

On October 5, 2016, the SOTF heard and referred the matter to the Compliance and Amendments Committee. It was requested that the Respondent provide justification for the redactions to the documents provided in response to the public records request.)

SPECIAL ORDER - lhe heai11ings on File No. 16088 aind 15089 will rnot begirni earlier thain 5:00 p.m.

The Compliance and Amendments Committee shall hold a hearing on File Nos. 16088 and 16089 to: 1) determine if the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force (SO TF) has jurisdiction; 2) review the merits of the complaints; and/or 3) issue a report and/or recommendation to the SOTF. The Complainant and Respondent mav attend to rprrovide clarrification, evidence and related testimony. However, attendance by the Complainant and Respondent is not required at the November 14, 2016, Compliance and Amendments Committee meeting.

The SO TF, upon receipt of the report and/or recommendation from the Committee, shall conduct a hearing on the merits of the complaint. The Complaint and Respondent will be required to attend the SOTF meeting to review the merits of the complaint(s).

File No. 16088: Complaint filed by Ray Hartz against Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors, for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Section 67.16, by failing to place a written summary of the public comment, if no more than 150 words, in the minutes (September 6, 2016).

File No. 16089: Complaint filed by Ray Hartz against Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors, for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Sections 67.16 and 67.34, by willfully failing to place a written summary of the public comment, if no more than 150 words, in the minutes (September 20, 2016).

Documentation (evidence suppo11tingldisputing complaint)

For a document to be considered, it must be received at least five (5) working days before the hearing.

For inclusion into the agenda packet, supplemental/supporting documents must be received by 5:00 pm, November 9, 2016.

P45

Victor Voung Administrator

Sunshine Ordinance Task Force

1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, City Hall., Room 244 San Francisco CA 94102

phone 415-554-7724 fax 415-554-5163 [email protected] www.sfbos.org

G Cf:'.:1 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 Francisca 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 ta 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.

3

P46

§lljjn§h~nle orld~nancle l'a§~ forcie agenda packet

Documents