17017 Item No. 5 ------- SUNSHINE ORDINANCE TASK FORCE · 2020. 1. 6. · RE: Complaint No. 17017 -...

File No. 17017 Item No. 5 ------- -------SUNSHINE ORDINANCE TASK FORCE

AGENDA PACKET CONTENTS LIST

=S..;;;;O....;,T...;..F_-_C.:=;_o=m;.;.=...=.p=la=inc.:;..;:t:......;C;;...;o;;..;;.m=m=itt=e;...;:;.e ________ Date: April 25, 2017

~ Petition/Complaint 0 Memorandum - Deputy City Attorney ISa_ Complainant's Supporting Documents ~ Respondent's Response D Correspondence D Order of Determination D Minutes D Committee Recommendation/Referral D Administrator's Report D No Attachments

·OTHER

D D D D D D D D D D D D

Page:_ Page:m Page: 3 2. 'l.....

Page: $S3 Page:_ Page:_ Page:_ Page:_ Page:_

Completed by:_---'-V~. Y~o"-"u"'"'n=g ______ Date 04/21/17

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

P311

Young, Victor

From: Sent: To: Subject:

Google Forms <[email protected]> Monday, March 20, 2017 9:13 PM. SOTF, (BOS) New Response Complaint Form

Your form has a new entry.

Here are the results.

Complaint against which Department or Commission

Name of individual contacted at Department or Commission

Alleged Violation

Sunshine Ordinance Section:

Please describe alleged violation

Do you want a public hearing before the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force?

Date

Name

Address

City

Zip

Email

SF Dept of Housing and supportive Services

Randy Quezada

Public Records

Public Records Request

Requested Twitter Tweets made by Jeff Kositsky SF Department of Homelessness and Supportive Services, Randy Quezada replied they would be provided in 10 days. No response has been recieved after both followup email and 14 days.

No

Request Made March 7 2107

Dolores Clean

San Francisco

San Francisco

94103

[email protected]

P312

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

Text of request: I request copies of all tweets by Director Jeff Kositsky of the SF Department of Homelessness and Supportive Services made that are relevant to issues of Homelessness, Homeless Services, Encampments, Sweeps of Encampments, Supportive Services, and all matters related to his position as Director of the Department of Homelessness from July 1 2015 until this request is fulfilled. California courts ruled days ago, that public officials like Kositsky can not shield their communications from sunshine law requests like this one, by using private devices. Currently, Mr. Kositsky is blocking a large number of citizens from reading his tweets about homeless who have engaged with him on the twitter platform. Therefore, it is necessary to make this request as a Sunshine Act Request. Thank You.

Download. Gmail messages to.Google Drive with the Save Emails add-on.

This email was sent via the Google Forms Add-on.

P313

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

DENNIS J. HERRERA City Attorney

MEMORANDUM

·TO: Sunshine Ordinance Task Force

FROM: Nicholas Colla Deputy City Attorney

DATE: April 20, 2017

OFFICE OF THE CITY AnoRNEY

NICHOLAS COLLA

Deputy City Attorney

Direct Dial: (415) 554-3819 Email: nicholas.co\la @sfgov.org

RE: Complaint No. 17017 - Clean v. San Francisco Department of Homelessness and Supportive Services

COMPLAINT

Complainant Dolores Clean ("Complainant") alleges that the San Francis.co Department of Homelessness and Supportive Services ("the Department") violated provisions of the Sunshine Ordinance by failing to timely respond to her March 7, 2017 request for public records.

COMPLAINANT FILES THIS COMPLAINT

On March 21, 2017, Complainant filed this complainant with the Task Force regarding the Commission's alleged failure to timely respond to Complainant's public records request.

JURISDICTION

The Department is a "department" under the Ordinance. The Task Force therefore generally has jurisdiction to hear a complaint of a violation of the Ordinance against the Department. The Department has not contestedjurisdiction.

APPLICABLE STATUTORY SECTION(S)

Section 67 of the San Francisco Administrative Code:

• Section 67.21 governs responses to public records requests.

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

• Section 6253 governs the release of public records and the timing of responses.

APPLICABLE CASE LAW

• City of San Jose v. Superior Court (2017) -- Cal.4th-214 Cal. Rptr.3d 274 (Public business conducted on personal electronic devices or accounts may be subject to disclosure pursuant to PRA requests). ·

BACKGROUND

On March 7, 2017, Complainant sent an email to the Department at [email protected] in which she requested the following:

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

n:\codenf\as2014\960024 l \01186616.doc

P314


MEMORANDUM

OFFICE OF THE CITY ATIORNEY

TO: DATE: PAGE: RE:

Sunshine Ordinance Task Force April 20, 2017 2 ' Complaint No, 17017 - Clean v. San Francisco Department of Homelessness and Supportive Services

I request copies of all tweets by Director Jeff Kositsky of the SF Department of Homelessness and Supportive Services made that are relevant to issues of Homelessness, Homeless Services, Encampments, Sweeps of Encampments, Supportive Services, and all matters related to his position as Director of the Department of Homelessness from July 1 2015 until this request is fulfilled.

California courts ruled days ago, that public officials like Kositsky can not shield their communications from sunshine law requests like this one, by using private devices.

Currently, Mr. Kositsky is blocking a large number of citizens from reading his tweets about homeless who have engaged with him on the twitter platform. Therefore, it is necessary to make this request as a Sunshine Act Request.

On the same date, the Department employee Randy Quezada ("Mr. Quezada") sent a reply email acknowledging receipt of Complainant's request and stating that responsive documents would be provided within 10 days.

On March 21, 2017, Mr. Quezada sent Complainant a follow up email in which he apologized for the delayed responsive and invoked an extension to respond so that he could research the rules regarding sunshine requests for access to private social media accounts.

On the same date; Complainant filed this complaint with the Task Force.

On March 24, 2017, Mr. Quezada sent the following email to Complainant:

All of Mr. Kositsky's tweets are available publicly at: http://twitter.com/jeffkositsky. Any person he blocked may also view his tweets by logging out of Twitter and returning to the above site. ·

OnApril 5, 2017, Mr. Quezada sent a follow up email to Complainant in which he stated in part as follows:

You also asked the Jeff unblock you from his personal Twitter account, citing section 67.21-1 of the San Francisco Sunshine Ordinance. That section, however, relates to City policy regarding use and purchase of computer systems. Section 67.21-l(a) of the San Francisco Sunshine Ordinance provides, "to 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 and shall make public records easily accessible over public networks such as the Internet." The section is not relevant here because Twitter is not a computer system used by the City to collect and store public records. The stated goals are those that apply to computer systems used by City departments. ·

n:\codenf\as2014\9600241\01186616.doc

P315


MEMORANDUM

OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY

TO: DATE:

Sunshine Ordinance Task Force April 20, 2017

PAGE: 3 RE: Complaint No. 17017 - Clean v. San Francisco Department of Homelessness and

Supportive Services ·

While we do not acknowledge that the Sunshine Ordinance applies to your new request, as you have expressed an interest in viewing Jeffs tweets, Jeff has unblocked your access as a matter of courtesy.

LEGAL ANALYSIS

In San Jose, the City of San Jose received a request for all voicemail messages, email or text messages sent or received on private electronic devices used by the City's Mayor, members of its City Counsel and/or their staff regarding San Jose City matters. In response, the City provided records sent from/received on private electronic devices using City accounts but not records from private devices using private accounts. The requestor, Smith, challenged this decision in an action for declaratory relief.

The State Supreme Court held that communications on personal electronic devices or personal accounts involving the conduct of the public's business may be public records subject to disclosure. Such writings include, but are not limited to, emails on personal computers and text messages on personal cell phones.

If the issue arises as to whether the tweets at issue are public records, the Task Force may want to consider whether the tweets are a form of conducting the Department's business via a private Twitter account.

QUESTIONS THAT MIGHT ASSIST IN DETERMINING FACTS

• Does Complainant contend that the response was untimely, that the eventual response was insufficient, or both?

LEGAL ISSUES/LEGAL DETERMINATIONS

• Did the Department violate Administrative Code Sections 67.21 by failing to timely respond to Complainant's public records request?

• Did the Department violate CPRA 6253(c) by allegedly failing to comply with Complainant's requests for records?

n:\codenf\as2014\9600241 \01186616.doc

P316


MEMORANDUM

TO: DATE: PAGE:

Sunshine Ordinance Task Force April 20, 2017 4

OFFICE OF THE CITY ATIORNEY

RE: Complaint No. 17017 - Clean v. San Francisco Department of Homelessness and Supportive Services

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\as2014\960024 l \01186616.doc

P317


MEMORANDUM


TO: DATE: PAGE: RE:

Sunshine Ordinance Task Force April 20, 2017 5 Complaint No. 17017 - Clean v. San Francisco Department of Homelessness and Supportive Services

* * * 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 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.

(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 of records 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 district 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 acted on by the supervisor of public records, the

n:\codenf\as2014 \9600241\01186616.doc

P318


MEMORANDUM

TO: DATE: PAGE:

·Sunshine Ordinance Task Force April 20, 2017 6


RE: Complaint No.· 17017-: Clean v. San Francisco Department of Homelessness and Supportive Services

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 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 comply 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.

SEC. 67.21-1. POLICY REGARDING USE AND PURCHASE OF COMPUTER SYSTEMS.

(a) It is the policy of the City and County of San Francisco to utilize computer technology in order to reduce the cost of public records management, including the costs of collecting, maintaining, and disclosing records subject to disclosure to members of the public under this section. To 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 and shall make public records easily accessible over public networks such as the Internet.

(b) Departments purchasing new computer systems shall attempt to reach the following goals as a means to achieve lower costs to the public in connection with the public disclosure of records:

(1) Implementing a computer system in which exempt information is segregated or filed separately from otherwise disclosable information.

(2) Implementing a system that permits reproduction of electronic copies of records in a format that is generally recognized as an industry standard format.

(3) Implementing a system that permits making records available through the largest nonprofit, non-proprietary public computer network, consistent with the requirement for security of information.

CAL. PUBLIC RECORDS ACT (GOVT. CODE §§ 6250, ET SEQ.)

SEC. 6253

( 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

n:\codenf\as2014\960024 l \01186616.doc

P319


MEMORANDUM

TO: DATE: PAGE:

Sunshine Ordinance Task Force April 20, 2017 7


RE. •. Complaint No. 17017 - Clean v. San Francisco Department of Homelessness and

Supportive Services

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.

(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.

n:\codenf\as2014\960024 l \01186616.doc

P320

File No. 17017

Sunshine Ordinance Task Force Complaint Summary

Dolores Clean V. Randy Quezada, Department of Homelessness and Supportive Housing

Date filed with SOTF: 3/20117

Contacts information (Complainant information listed first): kjmmbm@gmail .corn (Complainant) [email protected]; [email protected]; (Respondent)

File No. 17017: Complaint filed by Dolores Clean against Randy Quezada and the Department of Homelessness and Supporting Housing for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Section 67.21, by failing to respond to a request for public records in a timely and/or complete manner.

Administrative Summary if applicable:

Request for records submitted on March 7, 2017. (Please provide a copy of the request for public records submitted.)

Complaint Attached.

P321

The Sunshine Law anticipated Twitter and speaks to how the law should evolves to ensure the people don't cede the right to know

Twitter has changed the way the people's business is conducted. It has been credited with changing the world in things like the "arab spring" and its impact has caused governments like China and Turkey to block and censor it . As US Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan stated earlier this month:

I mE?an, we're sort of aware of it because the President now uses Twitter. But in fact, ev11rybody uses Twitter. AU 50

governors, all 100 senators, every member of the House has a Twitter account. So this has become a crucial -crucially

important channel of political communication.

When the Sunshine act was created, Twitter was not a thing. But the sunshine law anticipated that things like Twitter would happen, - and nicely the law spoke about how attorney's apply it when Twitter.

The Board. qt Supervisors and the People of the City and County of San Francisco find ancl declare;

(a) Government"s duty is to sef\le the public, reaching Its decisions in full. view of the p(lblio.

(b) Elected officials, comrnissiQhs, bo;i.rds, councils and other· agencies a.I the City and County exist to conductthe people"s business. The people do not cede to these entities t.he right to. decide what the people should know abou.t the. operations. of !ocal government.

(c) AlthoLJgh California hµs·a'ton(l tradition of laws designed to protect the public"s accl!ss to the workings of government •. every generation of governmental leaders includes officials who feel more comfortable conducting public business a"".ay ~on; the scrutiny of those w~o elect and employ them, New'appro~ch~s·to go\ler[iment const~n~y off~ri publiq im~ii;ils.atid1~(iria1 \'lfays tii:IUc!e t~~~akl~g d1 p~buc! politytfqm iii~ public'.· Ai> go'(erhmeDt evolves, so m~si :tiie' jaws !Je~igriedJc\ eni;Ufe ttiat;tlJe pfocesS: rem~lns visible, .

(d) The right of the people to know what their government and those acting on behalf of their government are doing is fundamental to democracy, and with very few exceptions, that right supersedes any other policy interes.t government officials may use to prevent public access to information. Only in rare and unusual circumstances does the public

Kositsky has blocked Twitter Accounts

As Justice Kagan's comment stresses, Twitter opens new approach to government, Unfortunately as predicted by the Sunshine Act --- Kositsky is using the Twitter block feature to hide the making of public policy from the public,

There is no question that Kositsky is blocking accounts of members of the public who are interested in the issues of homelessness from following his Twitter account. Quesada's response to the complaint admits that Kositsky has "block" his twitter account against some members of the public. When trying to access the account, I see:

You are blocked from following @JeffKositsky and viewing @JeffKositsky's Tweets. Learn more

P322

Kositsky Twitter Stream is covered by the Sunshine Act

Mr. Quesada does not dispute that the tweets made by Kositsky are Sunshine law public records because they relate to his employment as the Director of homeless services.

Kositsky response fails Sunshine Act Sec. 67.21-1 because it is not the "convenient. efficient or

economical" way to handle Twitter communications to the extent technologically and

economically feasible

The law at section 67.21-1 describes how public officials in the Twitter environment of today

must make the public information available to the members of the public "To the extent that it

is technologically and economically feasible, [act in a way designed to] ensure convenient,

efficient, and economical public access to records and shall make public records easily accessible over public networks such as the Internet"'( emphasis added)

Twitter is part of the internet, but it is also a public network such as the Internet, as described by

the act. Kositsky action to "Twitter block" the public is a purposefully and intentional system

design decision to make access of twitter public records more difficult. And more difficult is law violating less convenient. Kositsky decision to block people, is intended to make it ·more costly,

less efficient, and Jess convenient to timely read a vitally important channel of public communication.

Homeless Services Communications director Quesada, appears to contend that an obscure

method saves Kositsky .from the reach of the act. ("Any person he blocked may also view his

tweets by logging out of Twitter and returning to the above site. ") And as an active user of

twitter since April 2010, I did not know of this method. Trying the method today, I find that it is at

best an "hokey pokey" login /logout that lacks the efficiency and convenience that has

propelled Twitter to being a platform that moves the world. It is an obscure method because

Twitter does not advertise it, - i.e. "learn more" link shown when an account is blocked does talk about it. (https://support.twitter.com/articles/20172060 and attached)

The hokey pokey method violates the act which requires a standard of efficiency and convenience because it would force the public to leave the Twitter public network, and apply some obscure login, logout method.

Additionally, this hokey pokey method is inconvenient. It takes time, and is wasteful It would

likely result in many missed messages compared to the efficient, convenient default option. It

certainly would not be as timely, because no member of the public could be expecting to

clicking on the link every second.· Hokey Pokey is just an inconvenient obscure excuse of a

method that Quesada, a communications director - brings up months later than when the blocking started. It does not meet the act requirements.

P323

Normal twitter is convenient, is it just works. It is not convenient to have to logout, then have to log back in. Similarly, it is not efficient, to have to logout and then have to log back in. It would take longer, and one would miss messages. The hokey pokey method does not meet the Act's requirements of to extent economically and technologically feasible, the most efficient and convenient method be used. Blocking Twitter accounts of the members of the public is interested information channel violates the sunshine act.

Kositsky should be directed to Twitter unblock

Twitter if a crucial important channel of public co_mmunication according to a widely read quote Supreme Court Justice Kagan. The Sunshine law anticipated events like Twitter would change government, and declared to the extent economically and technologically feasible, the public communication channels should be open in the most convenient, efficient and economical manner. Selectively blocking the Twitter accounts of those interested in the government job he does is the antithesis, of choosing the the most convenient, efficient and economically manner to get the public's information out to the people who seek it. The sunshine law anticipated

Twitter, and describes what standards to apply. Applying those standards and Kositsky should be directed to unblock his Twitter account.

P324

-~- ·---- ~'-' ---------·~----~~-~----·--~--- -

~ Help Center Er1gli~ll v v

o· HELP CENTER > FIX A PROBLEM > IROUBLESHOOTING

Troubleshooting

Account

Why are ch0n~}12s w nw Jco:i1.1nt :,;i:Ht1n9;: not :::avmg?

fin h2•1in9 uuublu u;;ILl1Hiinu ~ \)!UfiJL-µJ1L•lO

I'm !1:ivin~:i tn );1bk· \"Vlir.1 ~!:it:;

!'rn nc.t rere1vmg (•fl1J1ls irom T•u:ttcf

J\dions

Mobilt• ancJ web

Search

M1s-c0llan0ous

Someone blocked my account Twitter gives people a variety of Lools to control their experience, including blocking. Blocking helps people In restricting specific accounts from contacting them, seeing their Tweets, anr1 foli<)Wing

them. If you have been blocked by another account on Twitter, you ca11 still block olher accounts (including any that have blocked you),

If you vlsifthe profile of an account that has blocked your account, you will see a message alerting you of the lJlock.

Softtly0 ...,,...,,,.,,

Yau can still report an account that has blocked you. When reporting the account, you will have the option to include Tweets that mention you, unless t11at account has protected their Tweets and you do not follow them. If the account has blocked you, then their Tweets that do not mention you cannot be viewed or included in your report.

Visit the profile of the account you'd like to report:

l. Click or top on the gear icon I',) (on web or Twitter for 105), or

tap on the overflow icon : (Twitter for Android),

2, Click or tap Report:

3. Next, we'll ask you to pr.:>Vlde additional infor.mation about the issua you're reporting.

f'.or more details about blocking, Including information about how blocking limits interactions between accounts, react this .ort1dc

Was this article helpful?

P325

Young, Victor

From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject:

Dolores Clean <[email protected]> Thursqay, April 06, 2017 6:02 PM SOTF, (BOS) Quezada, Randolph (HOM); HSHSunshine; Calvillo, Angela (BOS)

Attachments: Re: SOTF - Complaint Filed with the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force - Complaint No. 17017 SOTF 17017DoloresCleanvsRandalQuezadaDepartmentofHomelessServices. pdf

Please find attached my communication styled as an inquiry of status and for finding jurisdiction.

On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 12:58 PM, SOTF, (BOS) <[email protected]> wrote:.

Good Afternoon:

You have been named as a Respondent 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.

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. P326

Both parties (Complainant and Respondent) will be contacted once a hearing date is determined. Attached is the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force's complaint procedures.

Thank you.

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

[email protected] I www.sfbos.org

• 11.o 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 ofSllpervisors 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 identijjJing inform{[fion when they communicate with the Board of Supervisors and its commillees. All written or oral co111m11nical/011s that members of the pllb!ic submit to the Clerk's Office regarding pending legislation or hearings ll'ill be made available to all members of the public for inspection and copying. The Clerk's Office does not redact any informationji·om these submissions. 711is means that personal information-including names; phone numbers, addresses and similar i1?formatio11 that a member of the public elects to submit to the Board and its committees-may appear on the Board ofSupen•1:wrs website or in other public documents that members oft he public may imq;ect or copy.

Dolores Clean SOTF 17017

vs Dolores Clean' s inquiry of status and

Randy Quezada, & . ·jurisdiction

Department of Homeless Services

On March 21, 2017, the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force accepted this complaint.

It noticed the Respondent with an enumerated list of 5 things he needed to respond

to within 5 business days, with the language shown below.

~

The Respondentis requirecl to submit a written response to the allegations iijduQU,lg !JUY and all supporting documents~ recorrliJJ.gs; electronic: media, etc., to the Tu.sk; Force Within five (5) .btisiness days o{ 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. z. 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 all relevant documents have been provided, does not e:xlst, or has been excluded: 5. . Copy of the original request for records (jf applicable).

Please refer t9 the Ftle Number when submitting any new information and/or supporting doQJments pertaining to this complaint.

These response are overdue and none of these responses happened. Instead,

Respondents have emailed Clean that "[they] were hoping to clarify the rules

P328

around social media within the deadline" (March 21) and " [they] do not

acknowledge that the Sunshine Ordinance applies [to blocking twitter]" (April 5)

Many other Sources are confirming that Twitter is an important way government is conducted

Twitter has changed the way the people's business is conducted. It has been

credited with changing the world in things like the "Arab Spring" and its impact

has caused governments like China and Turkey to block and censor it . As US

Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan stated earlier last during oral argument:

l mean, we're sort of aware of it because the Pi·esident now uses Twitter.· But in fact, everybody uses Twitter: AU 50_

governors, all 100 senators, every member of the House has a Twitter account. So this has become a crucial - crucially

important channel of political communication.

Similarly Twitter is heavily used by the City, The official City Twitter @sfgov

account has 166k followers, an amount that approaches the circulation of the

Sf Chronicle. The Mayor, has 56k followers @MayorEdLee and Board of

Supervisors, @SFBOS have twitter accounts, as do every member of the Board of

Supervisors. The head of the Department of Public Works, Mohammed Nuru,

@MrCleanSF uses twitter to be both outwardly communicative, and collect

records from the public as does @SFMTA muni The Department of Public

Health@SF DPH has a twitter account. @SFBART has a twitter account with>

240k followers @SF311 the central communicative hub for the city, and through

P329

·the twitter account that annually receives more that an 1000 inquiries on all type

of public records see also police: @SFPD, fire: @sffdpio , @SFCityAttorney

Even where the Government's aim has been to block twitter, they have been treated as records.

As I write, twitter informs me that Twitter (the company) filed suit today,

April 6, 2017 represented by the ACLU in Northern California District Court to ·

block the Department of Homeland Security from forcing it to reveal the identity

of the persons behind the @Alt USCIS account. Case No 3:17-cv-1916. The

complaint does an excellent job addressing the First Amendment importance of

people using twitter to make "pure political speech" criticizing governmental

actions. The First Amendment speech & petition protections and the Sunshine

Ordinance protections overlap, and should inform this matter.

President Donald Trump's - the nation's highest governmental officials tweets are considered public records As pointed out in the above quote from Just~ce Elena Kagan everybody knows that

Trump tweets. All the sources are coming in say that Trump's tweets are public

records.

http://theconversation.com/donald-trumps-tweets-are-now-presidential-records-71973

http://www.csmonitor.com/T echnology/2017 /0404/Wh ite-House-agrees-to-save-Tru mp-t

weets-for-National-Archives

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/national-archives-advises-white-house-preserve-trump-tw eets/story?id=46570319

P330

No one expects that Kositsky;s tweets would have the importance of Trump's

tweets, but the expression goes, all politics is local. For the people of San

Francisco, housed and unhoused, homelessness is an important issues. Locally

important tweets are public records too. In the local context, I also found this link

reaching the same legal conclusfon that a lower level government officials tweets

are public records. In this instance Kositsky blocking his twitter account to those

who question his statements, violated the Sunshine Ordinance, especially after he

continued to block access after being requested.

Quezada has not responded to the requests~ and Kositsky has deleted important tweets

Kositsky has not responded to the 5 business day deadline, but has instead deleted

at least two of the most relevant tweets. That is troubling.

Conclusion

The SOTF should find that jurisdiction over Kositsky's tweets, and direct him to

submit the 5 business day 5 enumerated list of items repoduced at page 1.

/s/

Dolores Clean April 6~ 2017

P331

4/18/2017 Gmail - Sunshine Records Request.

M Gmail Dolores Clean <[email protected]>

Sunshine Records Request.

HSHSunshine <[email protected]> Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 8:53 AM To: Dolores Clean <[email protected]>, HSHSunshine <[email protected]>

Dear D,

Apologies for the delay. We were hoping to clarify the rules around social media within the deadline.

Unfortunately, I was out of the office yesterday. We will need an extension at this point to clarify the rules and gather the responsive documents.

Best,

Randy Quezada

From: Dolores Clean [mailto:[email protected]]

Sent: Monday, March 20, 2017 11:29 AM

To: HSHSunshine < [email protected]>

Subject: Re: Sunshine Records Request.

[Quoted text hidden]

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/O/?ui=2&ik=a2973928~6&view=pt&msg=15affg~c~fuiaca2&search=inbox&siml=l5afl92ce2bbaca2 1/1


~ Gmail Dolores Clean <[email protected]>


HSHSunshine <[email protected]> Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 8:53 AM To: Dolores Clean <[email protected]>, HSHSunshine <[email protected]>

Dear D,


Unfortunately, I was out of the office yesterday. We will need an extension at this point to clarify the rules and

gather the responsive documents.

Best,

Randy Quezada

From: Dolores Clean [mailto:[email protected]]

Sent: Monday, March 20, 2017 11:29 AM

To: HSHSunshine < [email protected]>

Subject: Re: Sunshine Records Request.

(Quoted text hidden]

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/O/?ui=2&ik=a297392826&view=pt&msg=15affti~c~~baca2&search=inbox&siml=15af192ce2bbaca2 1/1




Dolores Clean <[email protected]> To: [email protected].

Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 4:54 PM

I request copies of all tweets by Director Jeff Kositsky of the SF Department of Homelessness and Supporti\ie Services made that are relevant to issues of Homelessness, Homeless Services, Encampments, Sweeps of Encampments, Supporti\ie Services, and all matters related to his position as Director of the Department of Homelessness from July 1 2015 until this request is fulfilled.

California courts ruled days ago, that public officials like Kositsky can not shield their communications from sunshine law requests like this one, by using private devices. ·

Currently, Mr. Kositsky is blocking a large number of citizens from reading his tweets about homeless who ha\ie engaged with him on the twitter platform. Therefore, it is necessary to make this request as a Sunshine Act Request.

Thank You.

D

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/O/?ui=2&ik=a297392B26&view=pt&msg=15a£~~~bB2ae&search=inbox&siml=15aab6954afbB2ae 1/1


.~ Gmail Dolores Clean <[email protected]>


Dolores Clean <[email protected]> Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 11:28 AM To: HSHSunshine <[email protected]>

Hi

This response is now past due the statutory period.

For the record clarity, I have received no further communication from you either asking for an extension, or explaining why it would take a longer than the statutory period to provide.

If this is an inadvertent slip up in not meeting the responsive deadline, I am now notifying you that the matter is late, and providing you a window to correct.

Please immediately let me know the status, in order to prevent the extra burdens of raising your failure to timely respond with the City Attorney and Sunshine Ordinance Task force.

Regards

On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 5:44 PM, HSHSunshine <[email protected]> wrote: [Quoted text hidden]

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/O/?ui=2&ik=a297392826&view=pt&msg=15a£f~~665c&search=inbox&siml=l5aecfa63917665c 1/1




Quezada, Randolph (HOM) <[email protected]> Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 4:22 PM To: HSHSunshine <[email protected]>, Dolores Clean <[email protected]> Cc: "Young, Victor" <[email protected]>

Dear D,

Apologies again for the delayed response.

All of Mr. Kositsky's tweets are available publicly at: http://twitter.com/jeffkositsky. Any person he blocked may

also view his tweets by logging out of Twitter and returning to the above site.

Best,

Randy Quezada

From: HSHSunshine

Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2017 8:53 AM

To: 'Dolores Clean'< [email protected]>; HSHSunshine < [email protected]> Subject: RE: Sunshine Records Request.

Dear D,


Unfortunately, I was out of the office yesterday. We will need an extension at this point to clarify the rules and gather the responsive documents.

Best,

Randy Quezada

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/O/?ui=2&ik=a297392826&view=pt&msg=l5bJ.?~~,§i3d975&search=inbox&siml=l5b02a107443d976 1/2


From: Dolores Clean [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, March 20, 2017 11:29 AM

To: HSHSunshine < [email protected]> Subject: Re: Sunshine Records Request.

Hi



https://mail.google.com/mail/u/O/?ui=2&ik=a297392826&view=pt&msg=15bfz~i?r]43d976&search=inbox&sim1=15b02a107443d976 2/2

Dolores Clean vs

Dolores Clean's - Hearing Submission

Randy Quezada, & Department of Homeless Services

With Further evidence and timeline explanation

April 25th, 2017 5:30 pm Room408

SOTF 17017

Background of complaint

The City Attorney's Office has long advised

governmental officials - including Kositsky - on the .

common sense idea that text communications with

the public on job matters done through their

personal accounts should be treated as public

records. Good Government Guide (p 84 et seq,

updated Sept.3, 2014). With the City Attorney's Good

Government Guide Kositsky was on official written

legal advice notice to treat tweets about job matters

Jeff Kositsky <[~J~ffl<O~lt!lky'

Director o·r San Fr~isw DeP<ltOOOf•t o! MometesemE!'ss mm Supµortilfll'. Housfri.j}; all op/1n1cms ~;.:prnssi:~ Mll.! my O\'trL

Profile accessed •"15£2017, see profile In screen g(ab Roge< Dots

!lB Joined Aprlt 1000

as public records1• And he, like many local and national governmental officials2,

1 Note, but setting aside Kositsky's previously raised excuse that as a boozy public servant he can chastise the concerned public that call him out for his callous statements of disregard for the conditions of the homeless. As reported he dismissed the unwanted attention of District 6 Supervisor, Jane Kim, as someone "on his back" that he can ignore - - just like here he ignores the jurisdictional coverage of the SOTF directions to answer the 5 standard questions within 5 days .. Similar to this case Kositsky - puts more attention to him image than helping the homeless - he shows his thin skin, and habit of falsely blaming others for shortcomings.. The news article describes how he was called out on his statement on Facebook, and then claimed that it was he was the victim and excused himself being boozy. With impressive audacity he claimed that it was he had been "violated," and sock puppeted the sfist website. In this case Kositsky displays the same amazing level of audacity, with claiming was

P338

did frequently tweet about work matters from a personal --here @JeffK.ositsky --

twitter account.

Unfortunately, Kositsky ignored the Good Government Guide , instead

Kositsky attached the prestige halo of his significant governmental post to his

twitter account, and then used that twitter account to falsely slander the

involved citizenry. He now refuses a valid sunshine request about his tweets.

- Rogor dots @fhJgr.•rf:H.11~1t'.211J .t.J Dec .:.cwi ~ Wa'1'l$ #Jeft'Kos.ltsh-y on 12-23-201.6! BIG BAD BULUES - RO- rne-.anies,

- questfoneerfng cootrarians, .compl3inem, tiyperboJl;HS ~· Ptaisers onfyl

t+ -• Again, I am interested in all opinions

and respond to all concerns but have no time for hate or hyperbole -bullies will

, be blocked

6' SO AM - 23 Dec 2016 from San Francisco, C.I\

After making this public record request and escalating it to a complaint, it was learned that @JeffKositsky deleted this tweet. The facts and circumstances of what caused him to delete this public record, and when he deleted the public record are unknown. At this stage Kositsky still has not answered the standard 5 basic questions of a SOTF complaint, that, if answered truthfully, co1o1ld address this iss1o10.

Kositsky has taken to twitter (See

sidebar image of December 23, 6:50

am tweet - now deleted) using the

prestige halo of his governmental

position to falsely slander the involved

citizenry as bullies and haters,

bragged of blocking twitter accounts

who expressed positions that

challenged his carefully constructed

attacked by "bullies" ancj "haters.", Please read how he was asked civilly civically appropriate questions - and then he explodes that he is the victim and cutting off the people rights.

2 In an April 6th filing this matter, titled " Dolores Clean's inquiry of status and jurisdiction " Similarly I fleshed out that the Mayor and all members of the BOS have twitter, as do a many San Francisco top department heads. There are official government twitter accounts and there is widespread usage of private twitter accounts by Dept heads and politicians. I also included Justice Elena Kagan recent oral argument comments that Twitter has become essential, with all 100 senators, and all members of the House have twitter account, and famously Donald Trump tweets. To address the 1 st amendment rights, I also included explanation and link to the ACLU written complaint regarding the now abandoned "ALT • •Immigration @ALT _uscis" litigation vs the Border Patrol.

P339

image, abused the twitter blocking feature to cut off valuable public discourse in

violation of the people's 1 st amendment rights, ignored the present Sunshine

Ordinance request, and remains obstinately defiant of the Task Force's requirement that

he respond to the standard 5 particular questions within 5 days directive.

Kositsky should have known better. The long standing advice contained in the

Good Government Guide (officials do not escape the reach of the CPRA by using

private services) was confirmed on March 2, 2017, when the California Supreme Court,

issued a full decision in the matter of City of San Jose vs. Superior Court. Citation

And way back on December 23, 2016

@DPClean made a request asking

why for the block from seeing and

following @JeffKositsky tweets -- this

request sounds close to a public

: '. Replying to @agi;atrir. @JeffKositsky . I , .. , Dolores Clean @DPClean · 23 Dee 2016 "

~. @SF _DHSH Hi, l\'JeffKositsky why was my twitter aceount blocked from seeing

and following your tweets?

'inu <VI'.! i1iru~r.~11 fmm fnltn•ni11r1 @.h~\tJ.:o~,jL-<>k!I {1ml Vh'W,'ln{j rJ:.l!"ftKn~,j1·.:;ky'!-. "f»Je~ts. LP.nll\ f/1fJf(]

Ii>• 1

records request to the @SF DHSH account3 (see sidebar on 23 Dec. 2016 tweet, or

click here for direct link.

After months of no response, on March 7th, 2017 the formal Sunshine request

was filed. Again, failing a substantive response, on March 21, 2017 the initial public

records request was escalated to SOTF complaint status.4 On March 24, 2017,

several things happened. The City Attorney updated the various city Departments with

3 The Good Government Guide, treats that request as only possibly a records requests, but one which in good practice should be responded to with clarified. @SF DHSH never responded. ( screen shot included below.)

4 Quezada emailed on March 21, 2017 stated, Apologies for the delay. We were hoping to clarify the rules around social media within the deadline. Unfortunately, I was out of the office yesterday. We will need an extension at this point to clarify the rules and gather the responsive documents.

P340

a multi page memorandum about the meaning of City of San Jose decision.

Additionally, on March 24 Quesada, emailed Dolores Clean where in he accepted that

Kositsky's tweets are public record, accepted that the response was late, and falsely

claimed that an obscure hacky, difficult and inconvenient procedure would allow

Dolores Clean access to the requested records. (attached as exhibit)

Also on the 24th, Dolores Clean responded to Quesada and all parties on the

email chain, explaining why the obscure, hacky inconvenient procedure Quezada

advanced does not satisfy the requirements of the Sunshine Ordinance - the ordinance

provides when records are in computer format, they must be released in the convenient

easy to access format rather than given out in a hard to access format designed to

make things difficult for the requester. (attached as exhibit)

On March 24th, Dolores Clean had not yet learned that Kositsky had taken the

highly problematic action of deleting some public records tweet prior Quezada

providing the difficult hacky to access method. Accordingly, Dolores Clean did not

raise the issue that Kositsky was deleting public records on that day.

On M;;uch 28, 2017 Dolores Clean filed a supplemental memorandum with the

SOTF, referencing the complaint number, 17017, asking SOFT to find jurisdiction and

require Kositsky to respond to the standard 5 particularized question required in 5 days.

On April 5, Quesada again emailed Clean - and again without a reference to the

Complaint number, again without copy to the SOTF email account-, and again without

responding to the 5 particularized questions the SOTF requires be responded to in 5

days." This time Quesada, suggested a fresh defense that they "do not acknowledge

P341

that Sunshine Ordinance applies."5 The defense Quesada advance is the same

defense the City Attorney's Good Government Guide advised not to do; the California

Supreme Court's decision in City of San Jose foreclosed, and the new March 24th City

Attorney memorandum discussing City of San Jose had re-explained.

On April 12, 2017, Dolores Clean filed an amendment with SOTF to specify

the citation to City of San Jose vs Superior Ct. Dolores Clean again raised that it

unfairly burdened Dolores Clean that Kositsky continuing ignoring the Task force by not

filing answers to the 5 particularized questions the SOFT requires in 5 days.

The motivation for a Sunshine request is not needed. but the motivation of why the

government official mishandled it matterst.

It is well established that Sunshine /CPRA requests do not need to provide a

motivation for the request6, Nevertheless, the connection between why the information

was requested, and the motivation of why it was not provide is important for the Task

Force to know about in deciding what to do.

On December 21, 2016 Kosit~ky was quoted in the respected journalistic biog

Missionlocal.org as telling a group of concerned neighbors, "We have completed our

work here in the Mission and I realize it may not look like that."

5 Quezada wrote, "While we do not acknowledge that the Sunshine Ordinance applies to your new request, as you have expressed an interest in viewing Jeff's tweets, Jeff has unblocked your access as a matter of courtesy."

6 - the public have a right to the information about their business, rather than being an act of

official discretion.

P342

On December 22, 2016 @DPClean made first ever tweet directed @jeffKositsky,

asking "Why do you say your job in the Mission is complete, because it's not.

i~ .:, Dolores clean ~~" l~"'POPCiean tllllt1.1}-

. @JeffKosltsky Why do you say your job in the Mission is complete; because its not. Encampments yesterday in Mission and it was cold out.

if:14 .A.M · 22 O~c Ji>1fi

Encampments yesterday in Mission

and it was cold out". Rather than

the typical tweet that included a

photo, my tweet presents as a gif

slideshow of the various

photographs the public had

submitted the previous day about

homeless encampments in the

Mission to the SF311 system

through the SF311 mobile app. In

considering this matter I ask the the

board to review the original tweet.

Here. because a screen grab can not capture the 8 second video slideshow. Contrary

to @JeffKositsy statement the tweet was not "bullying" , the tweet was not hate, the

tweet was not hyperbole.

The gif tweet was not grounded in "hate or hyperbole", as falsely accused by

@JeffKosistky, on the contrary it expressed empathy that the weather was very cold in

these days in December. Sadly, It was also prophetically timely, in that same day

MissionLocal reported that an 79 year old man sleeping on the cold sidewalks with only

pieces of cardboard as a mattress had died the night before.

P343

@JeffKositskys replied to my git tweet, along the line of saying, "I didn't say

that". Now that tweet has been deleted. Its unknown if he deleted it recently to avoid

this sunshine request, what motivated him to delete it, and when it was deleted.

With his reply, @DPClean made a second ever tweet directed back to

@JeffKositsky on Dec 22.

It stated, "maybe you

would like to clarify with

Missionlocal, bcz they

said you said ... " with a

partial screenshot of the

:~ii, Dolores Clean @DPClean · 22 Dec 2016

~ •. ~ Replying to @JeffKosilsky lll'lllShl. maybe you would like to clarify with Mis·sionlocal, bcz they sp.id you said~ ..

f<.o~iisky t!)lj:f t~e Qroup ihtit his rf~partment tla'i wrapped up a nearfy ft\le-rrionth elfo"rr to cofined the Mi!ii::ioo'S em:arnp.lhent teslden1s to services and homing, and thal Lhe responsib.illly of preventing re-encnrnpmenl now lies with local polke.

"-Once we were dOne, the malfor made: lt clear ~flotJ it's lhtt-poilce department's 1esponsib!fily lo keep those encampments lrom refo1m[ng/ he said.Some 125 People hr.\re bc:cn ·moved, he sajd, with apprmomatcly 101 receiving services und sheller. ~·~·~~:_,; .:_'.;

::{~ ~~i\;~!~:~F~~~~~G~~.~· 1'J'.~~~·t:;_r-~;;~t'.\;~i>;_:r.w;:~).~E~t~x~k~·J1r:::~·x.\~~-S\t):~ His new and.understaffed department is doing the bist they can wllhln the connnesof city re~ources, ha said, adding that the city's shelter waiting Jht tor the first tlme hit 1,000 people last week.

~ J. 1!1

Missionlocal article, quoting him as saying "work in the Mission is completed.: Again,

there was nothing in the @DPCLean tweet that was "bully" or "hate" or "hyperbole."

Rather it represents an extremely civil measured response, to a problematic statement

·by an official.

The third ever tweet @DPClean directed to Kositsky was about the 79 year old

homeless man who died cold and alone while sleeping outside on cardboard in the cold

December weather on a Mission sidewalk.

.9i· Dolores Clean i!IWir(, ' @DPClean llm!1i.·

Replying to @Jef!Kqsitsky

today a 79 yo man died cold and alone sleeping on cardboard in Mission. That ain't right, and you're quoted as ''we compftd" 8;1S AM - ,23 Dec 2016· from San Francisco, CA

ill

il:, 1• Tweet y~ur r~ply

P344

At that point I

discovered that Jeff

Kositsky had blocked

me. Later in the day

Dec 23, I asked through

v

the @SF _OHS account why I was blocked. They have never answered.

;,~,,., Dolores Cl!i>an @DPClean. W Dec 2016 v. ~.:. Replying to @agitatrix @JeffJ<o5itsky

ll!Bl~;i· tWSF DHSH Hi. #JeffKositsky why was my twitter account blocked from seeing

and following your tweets? Other members of twitter

•h 1

'{(ltl <111'..l lilncked !10111 fOl.lCJwlng f1)J~·fft~O~~l:\k~· ill>d itiifWU);_l @Jl!l11i•:1.:.su:~ky':1 ,, .... H(;I!~ l!!<Jill

n111m

ifjfl 1

came to my support. A fellow

twitter member also alerted the

public of @JeffKositsky reason

for blocking, through a screen grab. It stated, "I am interested in all opinions and

respond to all concerned but have no time for hate and hyperbole - bullies will be

blocked:"

,_. Roger dots @RogerBlumberg · 23 Dec 2016

~ Warns #JeffKositsky on 12-23-2016: BIG BAD Bl)LLIES -- no meanies, ...,. questioneering contrarians, complainers, hyperbolists -- Praisers only!

Again, I am interested in all opinions

v

and respond to all concerns but have no i

. time for hate or hyperbole - bullies will

be blocked

6:50 AM - 23 Dec 2016 from San Francisco, CA

We know know that Kositsky deleted this tweet. We don't know it it was in

resppnse to the public record request, when it was deleted, and what motivated the

P345

deletion. We do see that Kositsky deletes public records that threaten his carefully

constructed public image. This problem is much bigger than thin skin.7 8

Conclusion

The task force should find that 1) Kositsky violated the sunshine ordinance by

not responding to public record request in a timely manner, 2) that Kositsky violated

the sunshine when ~e responded incompletely to request for computer records, by only

providing access in an hacky, inconvenient manner, and 3) violated the sunshine

ordinance by responding in an incomplete manner by deleting relevant tweets, 4)

violated the sunshine ordinance by responding in an incomplete manner by not

providing deleted tweets.

/s/

Dolores Clean April 18, 2017

7 Another example of Kositsky going bonkers over social media was covered in the major press. In that instance Kositsky also attacked the person reporting Kositsky's callous disregard for the homeless. There in Kositsky claimed that he was the one who was "violated" and explaining his uncouth comments as because he was "boozy."

8 I stress to point this out because of the heavy burdening effect. It takes real effort to document that Kositsky deleted records, - investigative search, screenshot, link URL - a burden the public should not obligated to do when requesting public records. Deleting is deleting public records.

Kositsky's failure to answer the 5 standard questions within 5 days confuses the process.

P346

Dolores Clean SOTF 17017

vs Dolores Clean's inquiry of status and

Randy Quezada, & jurisdiction

Department of Homeless Services

On March 21, 2017, the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force accepted this complaint.

It noticed the Respondent with an enumerated list of 5 things he needed to respond

to within 5 business days, with the language shown below.

~

The Respondent is requirf!d to submit a written response to the allegations incluQ:ing any and all supporting documents, recordings; el,ectronic media, etc., to the Tusk Force Within five (5) business days of receipt of ijlis notice. This is your OPP.Ottunity 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 all relevant documents have been provided, does not exist, or has been excluded. S. Copy of the original request for records (ifapJ?licable).

Please refer to the File Number when submitting any new information.and/or supporting documents pertaining to this complaint.

These response· are overdue and none of these responses happened. Instead,,

Respondents have emailed Clean that "[they] were hoping to clarify the rules

P348

around social media within the deadline" (March 21) and" [they] do not

acknowledge that the Sunshine Ordinance applies [to blocking twitter]" (April 5)

Many other Sources are confirming that Twitter is an important way government is conducted

Twitter has changed the way the people's business is conducted. It has been

credited with changing the world in things like the "Arab Spring" and its impact

has caused governments like China and Turkey to block and censor it . As US

Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan stated earlier last during oral argument:

l mean, we're s.ort of aware of it because the President now uses Twitter. But in fact, everybody uses Twitte1: All 50

governors, all 100 senators, every mem.bel' o.f the House has a Twitter account. So this has become a cmcial ~ c111ciaUy

important channd o.f political communiCation.

Similarly Twitter is heavily used by the City, The official City Twitter @sfgov

account has 166k followers, an amount that approaches the circulation of the

SFChronicle. The Mayor, has 56k followers @MayorEdLee and Board of

Supervisors, @SFBOS have twitter accounts, as do every member of the Board of

Supervisors. The head of the Department of Public Works, Mohammed Nuru,

@MrCleanSF uses twitter to be both outwardly communicative, and collect

records from the public as does @SFMTA muni The Department of Public

Health @SF DPH has a twitter account. @SFBART has a twitter account with>

240k followers @SF3 l 1 the central communicative hub for the city, and through

P349

the twitter account that annually receives more that an 1 OOO inquiries on all type

of public records see also police: @SFPD, fire: @sffdpio , @SFCityAttorney

Even where the Government's aim has been to block twitter~ they have been treated as records.

As I write, twitter informs me that Twitter (the company) filed suit today,

April 6, 2017 represented by the ACLU in Northern California District Court to

block the Department of Homeland Security from forcing it to reveal the identity

of the persons behind the @Alt USCIS account. Case No 3:17-cv-1916. The

complaint does an excellent job addressing the First Amendment importance of

people using twitter to make "pure political speech" criticizing governmental

actions. The First Amendment speech & petition protections and the Sunshine

Ordinance protections overlap, and should inform this matter.

President Donald Trump's - the nation's highest governmental officials tweets are considered public records As pointed out in the above quote from Justice Elena Kagan everybody knows that

Trump tweets. All the sources are coming in say that Trump's tweets are public

records.

http://theconversation.com/donald-trumps-tweets-a re-now-presidential-records-71973

http://www.csmonitor.com/T echnology/2017 /0404/Wh ite-House-agrees-to-save-Trump-t

weets-for-National-Archives

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/national-archives-advises-white-house-preserve-trump-tw

eets/story?id=46570319

P350

No one expects that Kositsky;s tweets would have the importance of Trump's

tweets, but the expression goes, all politics is local. For the people of San

Francisco, housed and unhoused, homelessness is an important issues. Locally

important tweets are public records too. In the local context, I also found this link

reaching the same legal conclusion that a lower level government officials tweets

are public records. In this instance Kositsky blocking his twitter account to those

who question his statements, violated the Sunshine Ordinance, especially after he

continued to block access after being requested.

Quezada has not responded to the requests~ and Kositsky has deleted important tweets

Kositsky has not responded to the 5 business day deadline, but has instead deleted

at least two of the most relevant tweets. That is troubling.

Conclusion

The SOTF should find that jurisdiction over Kositsky's tweets, and direct him to

submit the 5 business day 5 enumerated list of items repoduced at page 1.

/s

Dolores Clean April 6p 2017

P351

Young, Victor

From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject:

Dear D,

HSHSunshine Wednesday, April 05, 2017 11 :23 AM Dolores Clean HSHSunshine; Young, Victor RE: .Sunshine Records Request. - Kositsky response does not meet acts requirements.

This email responds to your correspondence where you state that you have been able to access Jeff Kositsky's personal Twitter account through the website address that we pro'v'.ided you, and is available to the public.

You also asked the Jeff unblock you from his personal Twitter account, citing section 67.21-1 of the San Francisco Sunshine Ordinance. That section, however, relates to City policy regarding use and purchase of computer systems. Section 67:21-l{a) ofthe San Francisco Sunshine Ordinance provides, "to 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 and shall make public records easily accessible over public networks such as the Internet." The section is not relevant here because Twitter is not a computer system used by the City to collect and store public records. The stated goals are those that apply to computer systems used by City departments.

While we do not acknowledge that the Sunshine Ordinance applies to your new request, as you have expressed an interest in viewing Jeff's tweets, Jeff has unblocked your access as a matter of courtesy.

Best,

Randy Quezada

From: Dolores Clean [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, March 24, 2017 10:13 PM To: Quezada, Randolph (HOM) <[email protected]> Cc: HSHSunshine <[email protected]>; Young, Victor <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Sunshine Records Request. - Kositsky response does not meet acts requirements.

I am attaching a PDF explaining why the Quezada I Kositsky response does not meet the Sunshine Act's requirements and asking the task force to direct Mr. Kositsky to unblock Twitter.

On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 4:22 PM, Quezada, Randolph (HOM) <[email protected]> wrote:

Dear D, ·

Apologies again for the delayed response.

All of Mr. Kositsky's tweets are available publicly at: http://twitter.com/jeffkositsky. Any person he blocked may also view his tweets by logging out ofTwitter and returning to the above site.

1

P353

Best,

Randy Quezada

From: HSHSunshine Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2017 8:53 AM To: 'Dolores Clean' <[email protected]>; HSHSunshine <[email protected]> Subject: RE: Sunshine Records Request.

Dear D,

Apologies for the delay. We were hoping to clarify the rules around social media within the deadline. Unfortunately, I was out of the office yesterday. We will need an extension at this point to clarify the rules and gather the responsive doc.uments.

Best,

Randy Quezada

From: Dolores Clean [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, March 20, 2017 11:29 AM To: HSHSunshine <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Sunshine Records Request.

Hi

This response is now past due the statutory period.

2 P354

For the record clarity, I have received no further communication from you either asking for an extension, or explaining why it would take a longer than the statutory period to provide.

If this is an inadvertent slip up in not meeting the responsive deadline, I ain now notifying you that the matter is late, and providing you a window to correct

Please immediately let me know the status, in order to prevent the extra burdens of raising your failure to timely respond with the City Attorney and Sunshine Ordinance Task force.

Regards

On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 5:44 PM, HSHSunshine <[email protected]> wrote:

Dear D,

We have received your request and will respond with responsive documents within 10 days.

Thank you,

Randy Quezada

From: Dolores Clean [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, March 07, 2017 4:55 PM To: HSHSunshine <[email protected]> Subject: Sunshine Records Request.

I request copies of all tweets by Director Jeff Kositsky of the SF Department of Homelessness and Supportive Services made that are relevant to issues of Homelessness, Homeless Services, Encampments, Sweeps of Encampments, Supportive Services, and all matters related to his position as Director of the Department of Homelessness from July 1 2015 until this request is fulfilled.

P~55

California courts ruled days ago, that public officials like Kositsky can not shield their communications from sunshine law requests like this one, by using private devices.

Currently, Mr. Kositsky is blocking a large number of citizens from reading his tweets about homeless who have engaged with him on the twitter platform. Therefore, it is necessary to make this request as a Sunshine Act Request.

Thank You.

D

P'356

Young, Victor·

From: Sent: To:

Cc:

SOTF, (BOS) Friday, April 07, 2017 4:03 PM '[email protected]'; Lediju, Tonia (CON); CON, Controller (CON); Rosenfield, Ben (CON); '[email protected]'; Quezada, Randolph (HOM); HSHSunshine; 'Josh Wolf; BreedStaff, (BOS); Baumgartner, Margaret (CAT); Guzman, Andrea (CAT); 'Ann Treboux'; Cote, John (CAT); '[email protected]'; Lew, Debra (TTX); 'Allen Grossman'; Eng, Michael (CPC); lonin, Jonas (CPC); Silva, Christine (CPC) Ng, Wilson (BOS); Calvillo, Angela (BOS)

Subject: SOTF - Notice of Hearing - Complaint Committee: April 25, 2017, 5:30 p.m.

Good Afternoon:

Notice is hereby given that the Complaint Committee (Committee) of the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force (Task Force) shall hold hearings on complaints listed below to: 1) determineifthe Task Force has jurisdiction; 2) review the merits of the complaints; and/or 3) issue a report and/or recommendation to the Task Force.

Date: April 25, 2017

. Location: City Hall, Room 408

Time: 5:30 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. 17016: Complaint filed by Jerry Dratler against Ben Rosenfield and the Office of the Controller for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Section 67.21, by failing to respond to a request for public records in a timely and/or complete manner.


File No. 17018: Complaint filed by Josh Wolf against President London Breed, Board of Supervisors, 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. 17023: Complaint filed by Ann Treboux against Margaret Baumgartner and the Office of the City Attorney, for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Section 67.25, by failing to respond to an Immediate Disclosure Request in a complete and/or timely manner.

File No. l 7024: Complaint filed by Gregory Berlin against the Office of the Treasurer and Tax Collector, for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Section 67.21, for failure to respond to a request for public records in a timely and/or complete manner.

Pi357

File No. 17025: Complaint filed by the SF Urban Forest Coalition against Michael Eng, Jonas Ionin, and Christine Silva, Planning Department, for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Section 67.24(c), 6·7.25, and 67.34, for failure to respond to an Immediate Disclosure Request in a timely and/or complete manner.

The Task Force, upon receipt of the report and/or recommendation from the Committee; shall schedule and

conduct a hearing on the merits of the complaint. Notice of hearing will be provided once the hearing date

has been confirm.

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 into the agenda packet, supplemental/supporting documents must be received by 5:00 pm, April 18, 2017.

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

• ll:r!l 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.

P~58

17017 Item No. 5 ------- SUNSHINE ORDINANCE TASK FORCE · 2020. 1. 6. · RE: Complaint No. 17017 -...

Documents

Transcript of 17017 Item No. 5 ------- SUNSHINE ORDINANCE TASK FORCE · 2020. 1. 6. · RE: Complaint No. 17017 -...