Hartz was right about that. On two other points that were raised and then i will wrap up. The statement that the 150word statements or summaries as the ordinance provides, are not generated or validated by the city commission, that whose minutes they are part of, does seem to me to be a useful notification to the public. To understand the difference between minutes that were generated by the official recording secretary, or responsible employee, and approved as you know the report of the meeting or the Business Decisions that were made. As distinguished from statements prepared by the public. As long as that is done consistently with regard to every statement that comes before them, i dont think that that is an effort to be demissive. I think that it is truly saying that these are Something Different from the minutes that we wrote. Their statements were written by someone else. All of that said, i think that these comments were very revealing about the statement of frustration that has
The task force can add to it but the City Attorney can. Even though in the law it says that the bodies to do it, and yet, the City Attorney who has absolutely no right to do it, can do it not with a legal decision, but with simply writing a memo. Good evening, commissioners my name is Katherine Howard i was one of the panelists at the Common Wealth club and i am member of the friends of the music club and the president ial alliance. I am a architect and i have been involved in park reservation it started with saving the trees in gold on gate park, since that time i have found it necessary to keep an eye on various projects planned for the park. Golden gate park is really the prize for those people who see park land as free land for building their pet project from the proposed 1915 worlds fair expocysing that would have wiped out the park to the freeways that were going to be built through the park. The soccer fields are a development. It could remove 7 acres of grass and replace it wit
So, he was suggesting that perhaps administrative code 8. 1 defines records in a way that would encompass the documents that can be deleted under category four. I think admin code section 8. 1, attempts or explains the universe of documents that you are looking at and puts them into different boxes. And as to whether they need to be kept permanently, for some period of years, or they are really only current records just for use on the day, that can be destroyed or thrown out. And then, the departments record retention policy, efectuates the requirements by being more specific about which documents fall into which of those boxes. Any further questions for mr. Ginsberg . Thank you, mr. Ginsberg. Any questions for mr. Wooding . Comments . Thoughts from the commissioners . On this agenda item . I may have one question for mr. Wooding. I think that it is in the records somewhere, but when you eventually got the documents from rec and park, after they went to their it people, did you get all
Very close with the City Attorneys Office on all record requests and when request was made to look at our back up data, i think that our custodian of records went did doing that in conjunction with the City Attorney and i dont know that it is a routine practice that we routinely check back up data, i think that when we are asked to do so, we do. You waited until the task force called it to your attention and asked to you do it . I believe that that was the time frame. I am not quite sure of the time frame when we ended up working with the department. Okay. And so at this point in time, does the department have a protocol about asking for you know to search back up files or back up tapes when getting a sunshine request . And i mentioned this only because you had made a point saying that you have a full fte person as the custodian of records and that you get many, many requests. Right. So we actually have about a person who works full time and half of an fte and all of the time that is s
The essential records and essential records do include among other things, records required for the protection for the rights of individuals. And that could be the individuals within the department or Something Like that. But, i think cha is essential here and what seems to be glossed over because we are focusing on this one narrow issue here. Is a much bigger one that i hope that you take up in some form or another and that is you have clear evidence before you. That you cannot deny in writing. That members of the department, highly paid members of the department directly reporting to the director of the department, basically tried to intercede and prevent the public from meeting and discussing a matter of Public Policy and used the weight of their office and their title to basically try to keep people from meeting and discussing something as a public concern. I think whether or not that is addressable under the particular thing that you are hearing tonight, would i ask you just as a