And or local ordinances that protect the disclosure of this information, including c3. 69913a. Her proposal i believe is to produce the information as redacted. Not having that section at my fingertips, or in mind, and i dont but its hard for me to make a judgment on this without knowing what that privilege knowing more about the nature of that privilege that would require that certain information be redacted. I am going back to her memo as well. This is the longer one. Thanks. Following up on commissioner studleys question, is the privileged standard that were looking at the one were talking about all notes, preliminary reports . Controllers benchmark studies, audits, investigations and other reports shall be confidential . That is that is the first part of it. First part. And the Second Quarter part of the standards is records of any investigation shall be considered confidential information to the extent permitted by state law. Correct. And then there is the evidence code 1040 secti
That is that is the first part of it. First part. And the Second Quarter part of the standards is records of any investigation shall be considered confidential information to the extent permitted by state law. Correct. And then there is the evidence code 1040 section defining official information. Okay. And that portion we dont have in our memo, right . Tonight . Here it is if you want to take a look at it. Okay. mr. Givner, have i missed anything . No, no. I was just searching to see if i had evidence code 1040. I would note that infection f1. 8110b involves whistleblower complaints and the second section you noted c369913 involves ethics investigations. Do commissioners have objections to taking Public Comment now. No. It sound like what you are offering to mr. Shaw is something outside of Public Comment and as a party to this proceeding you are giving him five minutes and after mr. Shaws five minutes open up the floor for Public Comment. Okay. We can do that. Thank you, mr. Givner.
Piece. So we have lingering concerns that the Ethics Commission is complicit in burying whistleblower complaints and in enabling retaliation and destruction of whistleblowers. I think it would help everyone, particularly the whistleblowers, if you would release something and you can honor confidentiality, but you dont have to get into this ridiculous secrecy where nothing can be revealed. Because that feels like you are doing something wrong. Thank you. Good afternoon, thank you. I think its very important to say a few words in support of mr. Menat shaw on this issue. And the memo, the two memos, one from your staff and the one from the outside attorney are regrettably ambiguous. Mr. Menat shaw is quite right to point out that unless something is specifically exempt, its by definition a Public Record, period and its a Public Record and disclosable unless it can be withheld under one of the specific sections of the state law. And if you look at the two charter sections that have been qu
Staffs rationale for nondisclosure at the time of the original request was. That may be something that is worth discussing. So i think it goes to the question of whether there was a willful violation or a different sort of matter . I believe mr. Menat shaw is free to make a request at any time, particularly now that he believes that the matter is concluded and to the extent that there are records available post a concluded investigation. There may be additional records that are now subject to disclosure. It really turns on what was available at the time a request was made . So just my final point, i am particularly troubled by the fact that apparently the commission has received either all 24 pages or at least the three pages and is able to review and consider those, which the public obviously hasnt seen, because that is the subject of the matter before us. I dont find in the charter or in the sunshine ordinance a provision that allows incamera review of documents this way and im still
October, i testified that 1040 doesnt apply and i also testified quite strongly, both here and at the Sunshine Task force that c369913 doesnt apply either. I have been denied access to these records for two years. Regarding access to litigation states, advice and compliance with, analysis of, and opinion concerning liability under or any communication otherwise concerning the California Public records act the ralph m. Brown act, political reform act and San Francisco ethics code or this ordinance, are pay atection to this, are Public Records. Subject to disclosure. Notably, section 6253c of sippra gives agencies ten days to notify requesters, whether the requested records are exempt or disclosable and that if an agency fails to notify the requester in a timely fashion, it waives any applicable exemption. Now two years after i filed this records request, you are going to telme that the two years is not that much longer than ten days. Sorry, you dont get to claim an exemption now when yo