This report. The first section, number 7, discusses the filing of form 700. And some focus needs to be placed on the fact that the filing of such reports are done under the penalty of perjury, the city librarian failed to figure that out. And he also didnt seem to understand that finding such a statement is perjury, even when it is not done in front of the public official under oath. And i have to believe that someone as intelligent does not understand those matters and there must be many more City Employees who do not understand, and potentially a lot of other were filing and complaints with the ftpc against the members. And it is the same as mr. Herrera in similar amounts. In section ten is says that due to the records involved. And it has been side tracked from the regular duties end quote, under the sunshine ordinance and the San Francisco public records act. And responding to public records requests, they are among the regular duties of every City Employees. This mistakingly repre
Herrera in similar amounts. In section ten is says that due to the records involved. And it has been side tracked from the regular duties end quote, under the sunshine ordinance and the San Francisco public records act. And responding to public records requests, they are among the regular duties of every City Employees. This mistakingly represents this as something that they are being taken away from their duties. It is part of their duty and any City Employee who is asked for a record is a requirement and part of their job duties to provide a job response. And putting this in a report saying that they are taken away from the regular duties it is simply a ploy and the record request to something and it is a legitimate legal request from a citizen of San Francisco. And the control and the supervision or a record and not getting it. And it is my own experience after chasing him for two solid years and going through the City Attorneys Office and a petition that the supervisor of records t
Received in multiple years with no belief that this body would take any action, the speaker took the matter to a state agency. After multiple training called the multiple sunshine declarations and trainings in ethics rules and statements all under the penalty of perjury and that he took those trainings and then proceeded the year after year file annual statements with the fdpc form 700, and that all said that he got nothing. And he did those under penalty of perjury, now. His amended filings showed that thousands of dollars of such gifts and the Library Commission most recently and illegally statement and it was illegally produced and illegally revised and illegally approved and released it to the media from the lie brae on the stationary and did it all out of the site of the public and multiple and not only violating the sunshine ordinance but the brown act because they did not have enough courage to talk about what they wanted to say in a public, open meeting. And so what they did is
And i even denied, answering whether they did exist or not, when they responded or the company requestor had a legal document saying that you should have it signed by the respondent. Agenda item 6, items for future meetings, do the commissioners have any suggestions as to items that they would like to see on the agenda for the meetings in november . Or subsequent there to . Mr. Heart you are the only mefm of the public, do you have a suggestion or items that we should put on the agenda. I do, ray hartz, director of San Francisco open government, i think that this body needs to acknowledge that in your charter it says that you are responsible to a degree for the sunshine ordinance and its implementation and enforcement. And yet in every single document, i see coming out of this body, you just, you fail to address it at all. And in the civil grand jury report, the sleeping watch dog that was mentioned by the civil grand jury. And you simply dismissed that with the typical response to civ
Saying that they are taken away from the regular duties it is simply a ploy and the record request to something and it is a legitimate legal request from a citizen of San Francisco. And the control and the supervision or a record and not getting it. And it is my own experience after chasing him for two solid years and going through the City Attorneys Office and a petition that the supervisor of records to continue to records and those were the very records used to find him in violation of the regulations. And i did not blame him. And i would lie about the existence which he did. And i even denied, answering whether they did exist or not, when they responded or the company requestor had a legal document saying that you should have it signed by the respondent. Agenda item 6, items for future meetings, do the commissioners have any suggestions as to items that they would like to see on the agenda for the meetings in november . Or subsequent there to . Mr. Heart you are the only mefm of th