9.13.22 SOTF LTR

525 Golden Gate Avenue, 13th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94102

T 415.554.3155
F 415.554.3161
TTY 415.554.3488
September 13, 2022
Chair Matt Yankee

Sunshine Ordinance Task Force
myankee.sotf@gmail.com
sotf@sfgov.org
Dear Chair Yankee:
I write to express my concern with certain actions taken by the Sunshine Ordinance
Task Force (Taskforce) over the course of the last week.
First, I have been informed that at the Taskforce’s meeting of September 7, 2022, the
Taskforce unanimously found in Taskforce File No. 21153 that I had violated Admin
Code Section 67.29-5 and 67.34 and willfully failed to keep, or cause to be kept, certain
minimum information in my Prop G calendar and therefore referred this case to the
Ethics Commission for further handling. Quite frankly, I find it implausible as to how the
Taskforce could have reached such a decision when it had adduced no evidence
indicating that any of the allegations contained in the complaint were in any way
intentional. To the contrary, PUC staff clearly informed you that the violations were
inadvertent, unintentional, and occurred on the first two days that I arrived at the PUC
after a unique and prolonged transition. Had you cared to inquire any further you would
have learned that I was not provided any transition plan by the prior administration
before my arrival and that the meetings referenced in the complaint were arranged,
scheduled, and calendared by the previous administration according to their accepted
calendaring protocol, before I or my assistant even arrived at the PUC, simply for me to
have introductory meetings with the existing leadership.
I have also had the opportunity to review a summary of the Taskforce’s discussion
regarding this complaint, and it appears that your members made suppositions to reach
their conclusions. Quite simply, the Taskforce members, each for their own reasons,
have essentially decided to apply the Sunshine Ordinance as a strict liability statute; i.e.,
any violation constitutes a willful violation irrespective of fact or circumstance. That is
clearly not the law.
Just as concerning, I have also learned that the Taskforce has also now decided to
include File no. 20126 in its referral to the Ethics Commission pursuant to suggestions
from the complainant (attached hereto as Exhibit “1” is the PUC’s position with respect to
that consolidation). Forwarding an unfounded complaint to the Ethics Commission that
involved different facts, circumstances, and departments, simply to support allegations of
a separate complaint, calls the objectivity and motivations of your Taskforce into
question.
OUR MISSION: To provide our customers with high-quality, efficient and reliable water, power and sewer
services in a manner that values environmental and community interests and sustains the resources entrusted
to our care.
I am well aware that the Ethics Commission has independent authority to adjudicate
matters concerning alleged violations of the Sunshine Ordinance. But File no. 20126
has been sitting on the Taskforce docket for more than a year and a half with no action
taken and no independent filing with or independent interest initiated by the Ethics
Commission. Now, you are providing the Ethics Commission with this file to “reduce
unnecessary bureaucracy” even though the complainant has made it explicitly clear that
he would like you to forward it in order to demonstrate a pattern of conduct. This is no
more appropriate than if I asked you to forward evidence of the thousands of meetings I
have scheduled and calendared over twenty years that have met with no complaint in
order to prove a pattern in support of my faithful adherence to sunshine and
transparency. Yet, I can think of no other way to prove a negative if the Taskforce is
going to facilitate the complainant’s attempt to merge cases either before your Taskforce
or the Ethics Commission.
Finally, I applaud both the Taskforce’s and the complainant’s commitment to government
transparency. That is a commitment I believe most elected officials and other
department heads share and we are all the better for it. Nevertheless, inadvertent
omissions and mistakes do happen and will likely occur in the future. Not every misstep
is willful or intentional. The Sunshine Ordinance was never intended to be a brute
cudgel to redefine every oversight or omission, regardless of how minor, into an
intentional obstruction.
Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter.
Sincerely,
Dennis J. Herrera
General Manager
cc:
Cheryl Leger, Board of Supervisors Assistant Clerk
LeeAnn Pelham, Ethics Commission Executive Director
Ronald Contreraz, Ethics Commission Clerk
Geraldo Moya, Ethics Commission Clerk
David Chiu, City Attorney
Enclosure
Cote, John W
From: Cote, John W

Sent: Monday, September 12, 2022 11:36 AM
To: Matt Yankee
Cc: SOTF, (BOS); Herrera, Dennis J; Ruski Augusto Sa, Mayara; Lila LaHood; Bruce Wolfe
(Chair, SOTF, SF); Anonymoose (@journo_anon) 🦌 🔍
Subject: RE: Question - RE: SOTF - Complaint Filed with the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force - File
No. 20126
Attachments: 20126 response-signed.pdf; A- 11-24-20 Response with records.pdf; B- 12-04-20
response with records.pdf
Dear Chair Yankee,
Although your hearing was only about complaint 21153, you have now involved file 20126, for which the Task
Force has made no determination. With all due respect, it is astonishing that you appear willing, in fact eager,
to take this complainant’s allegations at face value before there has even been an adjudication in case 20126
at the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force. Forwarding an unfounded complaint to the Ethics Commission before it
has been adjudicated would appear to be a clear case of bias and pre-judgement.
Anonymous is attempting to conflate two cases that involve different facts in different circumstances at
different City departments.
Nevertheless, if you are committed to pre-judging the issue, you should at least, in the interest of basic
fairness, include the response to complaint 20126 in the packet, not simply “the attachments that Anonymous
had submitted.” The response to complaint 20126 was timely filed with the SOTF over 18 months ago. I
include it again here for reference and inclusion.
Notably, despite having the response to complaint 20126 for more than a year and a half, the SOTF for
unknown reasons both fast-tracked a much more recent Anonymous complaint (21153) and appears ready to
ignore the response to 20126 by forwarding one-sided information to the Ethics Commission. That raises
concerns.
Thank you for your consideration.
Regards,
John Coté
Communications Director
San Francisco Public Utilities Commission
Mobile: 415-417-9319
Pronouns: he/him/his
sfpuc.org
Read our new annual report here.
1
From: Matt Yankee <myankee.sotf@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, September 9, 2022 9:30 AM
To: Anonymoose (@journo_anon) <arecordsrequestor@protonmail.com>
Cc: SOTF, (BOS) <sotf@sfgov.org>; Cote, John W <JCote@sfwater.org>; Herrera, Dennis J <DJHerrera@sfwater.org>;
Ruski Augusto Sa, Mayara <MRuskiAugustoSa@sfwater.org>; Lila LaHood <lilalahood.sotf@gmail.com>; Bruce Wolfe
(Chair, SOTF, SF) <sotf@brucewolfe.net>
Subject: Re: Question - RE: SOTF - Complaint Filed with the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force - File No. 20126
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Good morning Anonymous,
That is fine with me. Thank you for your proposal to help streamline our process.
Cheryl -- please include the attachments that Anonymous had submitted for File #20126 with the packet for File #21153. Then close
out File #20126 and remove it from any upcoming agendas.
Matt Yankee
Chair, Sunshine Ordinance Task Force
City and County of San Francisco
On Thu, Sep 8, 2022 at 1:24 PM Anonymoose (@journo_anon) <arecordsrequestor@protonmail.com> wrote:

Dear Chair Yankee,
(FYI CAC Chair LaHood, Member Wolfe, and Respondent Herrera)
I have a question. File 20126 is yet another now quite old allegation by me that Herrera violated the Prop G
calendar requirement (yes, separate from 19108 where you found violation, 20007 where Herrera supposedly
acquiesced to complying, and 21153 yesterday). 20126 is now on your proposed agenda for Sep 20.
Based on the Task Force's 21153 approved motion finding Herrera in willful violation of the Prop G calendar
requirement of even much later calendar entries in 2021, referring him to Compliance to monitor his calendars,
referring him to Ethics Commission and directing Member Wolfe to prepare a packet for the Ethics Commission
referral, I am happy to simply have this evidence be incorporated into those continued monitoring efforts and
presentation to the Ethics Commission.
If the Task Force is willing to simply use these as source materials in the Ethics referral to show a pattern, I am
happy to close 20126. It's unclear what purpose is served by having SOTF hold more Herrera Prop G hearings on
this given the continued monitoring decision.
Chair Yankee, please let me know if this is acceptable, and if so, I will then close 20126.
Regards,
Anonymoose
2
twitter.com/journo_anon
a 2022 SPJ NorCal James Madison Freedom of Information Award Winner
I'm not a lawyer; nothing herein is legal advice. If you are a public official, I may publish any of your communications regardless of any
notice you send to me.
------- Original Message -------

On Monday, February 22nd, 2021 at 7:58 PM, Cote, John (CAT) <John.Cote@sfcityatty.org> wrote:
Hello Cheryl,
Here is our response to complaint 20126 and two exhibits.
Thank you and stay

safe,
John Coté
Office of City Attorney Dennis Herrera
(415) 972-9779 Mobile
www.sfcityattorney.org
Find us on: Facebook Twitter Instagram
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email may contain confidential and/or legally privileged information. It is solely for the use of
the intended recipient(s). If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the content is
prohibited.
From: SOTF, (BOS) <sotf@sfgov.org>

Sent: Monday, February 15, 2021 2:32 PM
To: Cote, John (CAT) <John.Cote@sfcityatty.org>; CityAttorney (CAT) <cityattorney@SFCITYATTY.ORG>;
Buta, Odaya (CAT) <Odaya.Buta@sfcityatty.org>; Feitelberg, Brittany (CAT)
<Brittany.Feitelberg@sfcityatty.org>
3
Cc: Anonymous <arecordsrequestor@protonmail.com>
Subject: SOTF - Complaint Filed with the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force - File No. 20126
Good Afternoon:
The City Attorney’s Office has been named as a Respondent in the attached complaint filed
with the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force. Please respond to the attached 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.
Cheryl Leger
Assistant Clerk, Board of Supervisors
Tel: 415-554-7724
Click here to complete a Board of Supervisors Customer Service Satisfaction form.
4
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.
5
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
DENNIS J. HERRERA JOHN COTÉ
City Attorney Press Secretary,
Direct Dial: (415) 554-4662

Email: john.cote@sfcityatty.org
February 23, 2021
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
Honorable Members of the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force

c/o: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
Attn: Victor Young, Administrator
Room 244, City Hall
1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place
San Francisco CA 94102
victor.young@sfgov.org
Re: Sunshine Ordinance Task Force Complaint No. 20126

Anonymous (MuckRock News) v. Office of the City Attorney
Dear Honorable Task Force Members:
We write in response to the complaint filed by the Anonymous person affiliated with
MuckRock News concerning his request for a copy of the City Attorney’s “Prop G” calendar from
the first two weeks of November 2020.
Anonymous submitted his request on November 20, 2020. He said his goal was to
determine what information the City Attorney’s Office had entered into the calendar as of the date
of his request. On November 24, we produced the then-existing calendar in standard “weekly”
view. (Exhibit A.) That same day, without conferring with us or seeking clarification, Anonymous
filed this complaint. Upon reviewing the complaint we realized there had been a formatting error:
although we had entered the location of each meeting into Outlook, on November 9 and November
12, there were more entries than could fully fit on the page, causing the last few entries on those
dates to cut off midway. For example, the bottom-most entry on November 9 shows part of the
location information that we had entered (“City Hall, Room-”), but does not show the “234.” (All
the other entries on November 12 show the room number, which is the same in each case.) We
looked into the matter, found a method to produce the calendar in a way that showed all the
information that had been entered, and sent Anonymous an updated printout on December 4, 2020.
(Exhibit B.) To be clear, we just printed the existing information in a different way. We did not
change or enter any new information before re-printing it.
Anonymous claims we willfully violated section 67.2-5’s requirement to include location

information in the calendar. The records we produced show we had complied with the
requirement. (Exhibit B.) Moreover, the complaint rebuts the notion that the November 24
printout appeared to show a willful violation. Anonymous understood that it was a simple
formatting error. See Complaint, p. 2 (acknowledging that the information was “cut off” and
“doesn’t fit,” and that “[t]here exists on CAO computers a record that presumably has all parts of
the Prop G elements that they actually recorded”) (emphasis added). Knowing now that the weekly
view can cut off some information and that it may be possible to avoid this issue by printing in a
different format, we will try to be more alert to it going forward.
CITY HALL ∙ 1 DR. CARLTON B. GOODLETT PL, SUITE 234 ∙ SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94102-5408
RECEPTION: (415) 554-4700 ∙ FACSIMILE: (415) 554-4699
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
Letter to Sunshine Ordinance Task Force, Page 2
February 23, 2021
Anonymous also claims that our office failed to comply with the requirement to provide a
“general statement of issues discussed” at each meeting not otherwise publicly recorded:
• He claims we had not provided a general statement of issues for the City Attorney’s
meeting with the Mayor that took place on November 12 at 1:00pm. Exhibit B shows the
statement that we had entered. The calendar entry says, “teleconference re legal issues,”
and the complaint concedes that a description of this nature satisfies the requirement to
provide a “general” statement of issues when the discussion is attorney-client privileged.
• Anonymous challenges as inadequate the reference to a staff “check-in.” This is an

accurate and sufficient description of the meeting. The City Attorney occasionally
conducts general “check-ins” with his staff to connect on administrative office issues, as
well as pending legal matters.
• Anonymous states that unspecified other entries also do not contain a description. It
appears he is referring to the entries that read, “Review Advice/Staff Consultation.” But
as noted above, the obligation to provide a general statement of issues discussed applies
only to “meetings,” and the entries with this description do not refer to “meetings.” They
are placeholders to denote time that the City Attorney has blocked off on his calendar,
during which meetings or events are not to be scheduled, so that he may focus on tasks
such as reviewing pending legal matters. These entries do not correspond to “meetings”
and are not subject to section 67.29-5.
Finally, Anonymous asserts that the calendar did not list attendees at two meetings/events
for which a list of attendees might have been required, specifically the November 5 MCLE training
and the November 12 teleconference with the Mayor. The complaint acknowledges there are
exceptions to the rule requiring a list of attendees but asserts without evidence that no exceptions
applied. In fact, the entry for the November 5 MCLE training did not need to include a list of
attendees because there were more than 10 people in attendance. See Admin. Code § 67.29-5(b).
The entry for the November 12 teleconference with the Mayor correctly lists the attendees, and
Anonymous has no basis to allege otherwise.
Conclusion
We encourage requesters to seek clarification before rushing to file complaints with the
Task Force, and not to claim violations based on mere speculation. We respectfully request that
the complaint be dismissed.
DENNIS J. HERRERA
City Attorney
John Coté
Press Secretary, Communications Director
Buta, Odaya (CAT)
From: Buta, Odaya (CAT) on behalf of CityAttorney (CAT)

Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2020 5:14 PM
To: Anonymous
Cc: CityAttorney (CAT)
Subject: RE: Prop G calendars Nov 1-14 - Immediate Disclosure Request
Attachments: Responsive records 11-24-20.pdf
Dear requester,

I am responding on behalf of the City Attorney’s Office to your public records request. Attached to this email
please find the responsive records. Please note that we redacted the calendar entries for the dates that you
did not request.

Please send replies to cityattorney@sfcityatty.org

Sincerely,

Odaya Buta
Paralegal


This message and any attachments are solely for the intended recipient and may include privileged or confidential
information. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately, and permanently
delete this message and any attachments.

From: Anonymous <arecordsrequestor@protonmail.com>
Sent: Friday, November 20, 2020 4:53 PM
To: CityAttorney (CAT) <cityattorney@SFCITYATTY.ORG>
Subject: Prop G calendars Nov 1‐14 ‐ Immediate Disclosure Request

Dennis Herrera,

Please provide your "Prop G" (Admin Code 67.29‐5) calendar records that already exist at the time you receive this
request for the dates Nov 1 ‐ Nov 14, 2020.
If you make these records after the time you receive this request, they are not responsive records.

You should have created (or required your staff to create) those records no later than 3 business days after each event
day, and these entries should comply with SOTF 19108 where you were found to have violated the law for not recording
the location and issues discussed at your meetings.

Please remember that if a record does not exist when a public records request is received, the answer is that you have
no records responsive to the request. We will use further requests to determine exactly when you or your staff made
the records, so please don't lie.

1
NOTE: Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or
implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable
for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature (signature.asc
attachment), if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the
sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the
government all be disclosable public records.

Sincerely,

Anonymous

2
November 2, 2020 -
November 2020 December 2020
SuMo TuWe Th Fr Sa SuMo TuWe Th Fr Sa
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5
November 8, 2020
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
15 16 17 18 19 20 21 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
22 23 24 25 26 27 28 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
29 30 27 28 29 30 31
Monday, November 2 Tuesday, November 3

8:00am - 10:00am Review Advice/Staff Consultation (City Hall, 8:00am - 9:30am Review Advice/Staff Consultation (Shelter In Place)
Room 234) 9:30am - 10:00am Teleconference with DCA re: Legal Issues (Shelter
10:00am - 11:00am Teleconference with Executive Staff re: Legal In Place)
Issues (City Hall, Room 234) 10:00am - 11:00am Teleconference with Executive Staff re: Legal
11:00am - 11:30am Teleconference with DCA re: Legal Issues (City Issues (Shelter In Place)
Hall, Room 234) 11:00am - 5:00pm Review Advice/Staff Consultation (Shelter In
11:30am - 3:30pm Review Advice/Staff Consultation (City Hall, Place)
Room 234)
3:30pm - 4:00pm Teleconference with Executive Staff re: Legal
Issues (City Hall, Room 234)
Wednesday, November 4 Thursday, November 5

8:00am - 9:00am Review Advice/Staff Consultation (City Hall, Room 8:00am - 9:00am Review Advice/Staff Consultation (City Hall, Room
234) 234)
9:00am - 9:30am Senior Staff MTG re: Case/Matter Updates (City 9:00am - 10:00am Teleconference with DCA re: Legal Issues (City
Hall, Room 234) Hall, Room 234)
9:30am - 10:00am Review Advice/Staff Consultation (City Hall, 10:00am - 11:00am Teleconference with Executive Staff re: Legal
Room 234) Issues (City Hall, Room 234)
10:00am - 11:00am Teleconference with Executive Staff re: Legal 11:00am - 12:00pm Review Advice/Staff Consultation (City Hall,
Issues (City Hall, Room 234) Room 234)
11:00am - 3:30pm Review Advice/Staff Consultation (City Hall, 12:00pm - 2:00pm MCLE Webinar (City Hall, Room 234)
Room 234) 2:30pm - 5:30pm Review Advice/Staff Consultation (Shelter In
3:30pm - 4:00pm Teleconference with Executive Staff re: Legal Place)
Issues (City Hall, Room 234)
Friday, November 6 Saturday, November 7
Sunday, November 8
CityAttorney (CAT) 2 11/24/2020 11:46 AM

Buta, Odaya (CAT)
From: Buta, Odaya (CAT) on behalf of CityAttorney (CAT)

Sent: Friday, December 4, 2020 5:26 PM
To: Anonymous
Cc: CityAttorney (CAT)
Subject: RE: Prop G calendars Nov 1-14 - Immediate Disclosure Request
Attachments: 12-04-20 Responsive records.pdf
Dear requester,

I am responding on behalf of the City Attorney’s Office to your below records request. Attached please find the
responsive records in a single day format.


Sincerely,

Odaya Buta
Paralegal



From: Buta, Odaya (CAT) On Behalf Of CityAttorney (CAT)
Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2020 5:14 PM
To: Anonymous <arecordsrequestor@protonmail.com>
Cc: CityAttorney (CAT) <cityattorney@SFCITYATTY.ORG>
Subject: RE: Prop G calendars Nov 1‐14 ‐ Immediate Disclosure Request

Dear requester,

I am responding on behalf of the City Attorney’s Office to your public records request. Attached to this email
please find the responsive records. Please note that we redacted the calendar entries for the dates that you
did not request.


Sincerely,

1
Odaya Buta
Paralegal



From: Anonymous <arecordsrequestor@protonmail.com>
Sent: Friday, November 20, 2020 4:53 PM
To: CityAttorney (CAT) <cityattorney@SFCITYATTY.ORG>
Subject: Prop G calendars Nov 1‐14 ‐ Immediate Disclosure Request

Dennis Herrera,

Please provide your "Prop G" (Admin Code 67.29‐5) calendar records that already exist at the time you receive this
request for the dates Nov 1 ‐ Nov 14, 2020.
If you make these records after the time you receive this request, they are not responsive records.

You should have created (or required your staff to create) those records no later than 3 business days after each event
day, and these entries should comply with SOTF 19108 where you were found to have violated the law for not recording
the location and issues discussed at your meetings.

Please remember that if a record does not exist when a public records request is received, the answer is that you have
no records responsive to the request. We will use further requests to determine exactly when you or your staff made
the records, so please don't lie.

NOTE: Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or
implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable
for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature (signature.asc
attachment), if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the
sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the
government all be disclosable public records.

Sincerely,

Anonymous

2
Feitelberg, Brittany (CAT)
Subject: Review Advice/Staff Consultation

Location: City Hall, Room 234
Start: Mon 11/2/2020 8:00 AM

End: Mon 11/2/2020 10:00 AM
Recurrence: (none)
Organizer: CityAttorney (CAT)
1
Subject: Teleconference with Executive Staff re: Legal Issues

Start: Mon 11/2/2020 10:00 AM

End: Mon 11/2/2020 11:00 AM
Recurrence: (none)
1
Subject: Teleconference with DCA re: Legal Issues

Start: Mon 11/2/2020 11:00 AM

End: Mon 11/2/2020 11:30 AM
Recurrence: (none)
1

Start: Mon 11/2/2020 11:30 AM

End: Mon 11/2/2020 3:30 PM
Recurrence: (none)
1

Start: Mon 11/2/2020 3:30 PM

End: Mon 11/2/2020 4:00 PM
Recurrence: (none)
1

Location: Shelter In Place
Start: Tue 11/3/2020 8:00 AM

End: Tue 11/3/2020 9:30 AM
Recurrence: (none)
1

Start: Tue 11/3/2020 9:30 AM

End: Tue 11/3/2020 10:00 AM
Recurrence: (none)
1

Start: Tue 11/3/2020 10:00 AM

End: Tue 11/3/2020 11:00 AM
Recurrence: (none)
1

Start: Tue 11/3/2020 11:00 AM

End: Tue 11/3/2020 5:00 PM
Recurrence: (none)
1

Start: Wed 11/4/2020 8:00 AM

End: Wed 11/4/2020 9:00 AM
Recurrence: (none)
1
Subject: Teleconference with Senior Staff re: Case/Matter Updates

Start: Wed 11/4/2020 9:00 AM

End: Wed 11/4/2020 9:30 AM
Recurrence: (none)
1

Start: Wed 11/4/2020 9:30 AM

End: Wed 11/4/2020 10:00 AM
Recurrence: (none)
1

Start: Wed 11/4/2020 10:00 AM

End: Wed 11/4/2020 11:00 AM
Recurrence: (none)
1

Start: Wed 11/4/2020 11:00 AM

End: Wed 11/4/2020 3:30 PM
Recurrence: (none)
1

Start: Wed 11/4/2020 3:30 PM

End: Wed 11/4/2020 4:00 PM
Recurrence: (none)
1

Start: Thu 11/5/2020 8:00 AM

End: Thu 11/5/2020 9:00 AM
Recurrence: (none)
1

Start: Thu 11/5/2020 9:00 AM

End: Thu 11/5/2020 10:00 AM
Recurrence: (none)
1

Start: Thu 11/5/2020 10:00 AM

End: Thu 11/5/2020 11:00 AM
Recurrence: (none)
1

Start: Thu 11/5/2020 11:00 AM

End: Thu 11/5/2020 12:00 PM
Recurrence: (none)
1

Start: Thu 11/5/2020 2:30 PM

End: Thu 11/5/2020 5:30 PM
Recurrence: (none)
1
November 6, 2020
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5
Friday 8
15
9
16
10
17
11
18
12
19
13
20
14
21
6
13
7
14
8
15
9
16
10
17
11
18
12
19
22 23 24 25 26 27 28 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
29 30 27 28 29 30 31
FRIDAY Notes
7 AM
10
11
12 PM


Start: Mon 11/9/2020 8:00 AM

End: Mon 11/9/2020 10:00 AM
Recurrence: (none)
1

Start: Mon 11/9/2020 10:00 AM

End: Mon 11/9/2020 11:00 AM
Recurrence: (none)
1

Start: Mon 11/9/2020 11:00 AM

End: Mon 11/9/2020 11:30 AM
Recurrence: (none)
1

Start: Mon 11/9/2020 11:30 AM

End: Mon 11/9/2020 12:00 PM
Recurrence: (none)
1
Subject: Teleconference with DCAs re: Legal Issues

Start: Mon 11/9/2020 12:00 PM

End: Mon 11/9/2020 12:30 PM
Recurrence: (none)
Meeting Status: Meeting organizer
1

Start: Mon 11/9/2020 12:30 PM

End: Mon 11/9/2020 3:30 PM
Recurrence: (none)
1

Start: Mon 11/9/2020 3:30 PM

End: Mon 11/9/2020 4:00 PM
Recurrence: (none)
1

Start: Mon 11/9/2020 4:00 PM

End: Mon 11/9/2020 5:00 PM
Recurrence: (none)
1

Start: Tue 11/10/2020 8:00 AM

End: Tue 11/10/2020 10:00 AM
Recurrence: (none)
1

Start: Tue 11/10/2020 10:00 AM

End: Tue 11/10/2020 11:00 AM
Recurrence: (none)
1

Start: Tue 11/10/2020 11:00 AM

End: Tue 11/10/2020 12:30 PM
Recurrence: (none)
1

Start: Tue 11/10/2020 12:30 PM

End: Tue 11/10/2020 1:00 PM
Recurrence: (none)
1

Start: Tue 11/10/2020 1:00 PM

End: Tue 11/10/2020 5:00 PM
Recurrence: (none)
1

Start: Thu 11/12/2020 8:00 AM

End: Thu 11/12/2020 10:00 AM
Recurrence: (none)
1

Start: Thu 11/12/2020 10:00 AM

End: Thu 11/12/2020 11:00 AM
Recurrence: (none)
1
Subject: Teleconference with Staff re: Check In

Start: Thu 11/12/2020 11:00 AM

End: Thu 11/12/2020 11:30 AM
Recurrence: (none)
1

Start: Thu 11/12/2020 11:30 AM

End: Thu 11/12/2020 12:00 PM
Recurrence: (none)
1

Start: Thu 11/12/2020 12:00 PM

End: Thu 11/12/2020 12:30 PM
Recurrence: (none)
1

Start: Thu 11/12/2020 12:30 PM

End: Thu 11/12/2020 1:00 PM
Recurrence: (none)
1
Subject: Teleconference with Mayor Breed re: Legal Issues

Start: Thu 11/12/2020 1:00 PM

End: Thu 11/12/2020 1:30 PM
Recurrence: (none)
1

Start: Thu 11/12/2020 1:30 PM

End: Thu 11/12/2020 3:30 PM
Recurrence: (none)
1

Start: Thu 11/12/2020 3:30 PM

End: Thu 11/12/2020 4:00 PM
Recurrence: (none)
1

Start: Thu 11/12/2020 4:00 PM

End: Thu 11/12/2020 5:00 PM
Recurrence: (none)
1
November 13, 2020
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5
Friday 8
15
9
16
10
17
11
18
12
19
13
20
14
21
6
13
7
14
8
15
9
16
10
17
11
18
12
19
22 23 24 25 26 27 28 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
29 30 27 28 29 30 31
FRIDAY Notes
13
7 AM
10
11
12 PM

9.13.22 SOTF LTR

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

9.13.22 SOTF LTR

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

9.13.22 SOTF LTR

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

525 Golden Gate Avenue, 13th Floor

San Francisco, CA 94102

September 13, 2022

Chair Matt Yankee

Dear Chair Yankee:

Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter.

From: Cote, John W

Dear Chair Yankee,

Thank you for your consideration.

Good morning Anonymous,

On Thu, Sep 8, 2022 at 1:24 PM Anonymoose (@journo_anon) <arecordsrequestor@protonmail.com> wrote:

------- Original Message -------

Here is our response to complaint 20126 and two exhibits.

Thank you and stay

Office of City Attorney Dennis Herrera

(415) 972-9779 Mobile

Find us on: Facebook Twitter Instagram

From: SOTF, (BOS) <sotf@sfgov.org>

Please include the following information in your response if applicable:

The Complainant alleges:

Assistant Clerk, Board of Supervisors

Click here to complete a Board of Supervisors Customer Service Satisfaction form.

Direct Dial: (415) 554-4662

February 23, 2021

VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL

Honorable Members of the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force

Re: Sunshine Ordinance Task Force Complaint No. 20126

Dear Honorable Task Force Members:

Anonymous claims we willfully violated section 67.2-5’s requirement to include location

• Anonymous challenges as inadequate the reference to a staff “check-in.” This is an

From: Buta, Odaya (CAT) on behalf of CityAttorney (CAT)

Monday, November 2 Tuesday, November 3

Wednesday, November 4 Thursday, November 5

Friday, November 6 Saturday, November 7

CityAttorney (CAT) 2 11/24/2020 11:46 AM

From: Buta, Odaya (CAT) on behalf of CityAttorney (CAT)

Subject: Review Advice/Staff Consultation

Start: Mon 11/2/2020 8:00 AM

Organizer: CityAttorney (CAT)

Subject: Teleconference with Executive Staff re: Legal Issues

Start: Mon 11/2/2020 10:00 AM

Organizer: CityAttorney (CAT)

Subject: Teleconference with DCA re: Legal Issues

Start: Mon 11/2/2020 11:00 AM

Organizer: CityAttorney (CAT)

Subject: Review Advice/Staff Consultation

Start: Mon 11/2/2020 11:30 AM

Organizer: CityAttorney (CAT)

Subject: Teleconference with Executive Staff re: Legal Issues

Start: Mon 11/2/2020 3:30 PM

Organizer: CityAttorney (CAT)

Subject: Review Advice/Staff Consultation

Start: Tue 11/3/2020 8:00 AM

Organizer: CityAttorney (CAT)

Subject: Teleconference with DCA re: Legal Issues

Start: Tue 11/3/2020 9:30 AM

Organizer: CityAttorney (CAT)