And in the law that neither the city or any office or employee may assert 6255 or similar provisions for withholding any documents or information requested under this ordinance, and it has a similar provision. In 6424 i, i and could expand on that a little bit. Page eight of the memo, for example, in the other places. Okay. And i do believe however, that where there is a privacy interest, either asserted or recognized, that there is a need for a privacy balancing, which i would not consider a 6255. Balancing, but i think has in some ways, similar interests. Or similar factors to be considered. And im fairly familiar with the case law, and in my opinion, the case law is not great, or particularly on point about this. And i think that the. Lets back up and as far as my question, so, you know, the staff, and the City Attorney have appointed us to the administrative code 12 and in 2 a which does appear to be to me at least a statute that is specifically provides the right for the informati
Statement. Mr. Gavel to gavel each meeting is a time of deceit, question why the Department Head in the city should be held accountable for the actions or in actions of those under his direction and control is without logical basis. And when a Department Head accepts a position, takes an oath and accepts a salary, they have a responsibility to the citizens of san francisco. Do you believe that mr. Ginsburg was not informed regarding this matter . Do you believe that he did not purposefully avoid attending the hearing, as the Sunshine Task force and here . Now, to say that he was unaware of this matter is something only a complete idiot would say. And again, we have a case where john st. Croix will use a missing punctuation mark to thwart the will of san franciscans, i served in the military for 12 years and if you were the Commanding Officer of any command and someone in your command did something and the answer to the board of inquiry was that it was not my fault, you would be hung im
Provisions and generally the government, except for that particular provision in the sunshine ordinance, which i think pretty clearly says that the sunshine trumps with respect to other local laws. And now, with respect to the state law or the starter, but with respect to the other laws and i would include. And so what you are saying the view that there should be privacy balancing on. The just as there are considerations, such as the americans with disabilities act and other kinds of laws, that we have to sort of interpret into the statutes when they are not clearly stated, a privacy interest is strong and compelling, however it is not absolute. And just as courts and in my understanding have attempted to balance or reconcile these issues, they dont all go one way or the other. And what i was, i was about to say earlier is that the case law that i am familiar with, the san jose case and the teamsters or the priceless case, and this la case is new, so i am going to have to read it caref
Would actually have the power under the charter or the ordinance to so order. I get you that make a finding and post it on the website and send it to whoever you want, send warning letters and all of that. Its just the power to order a respondent to cease and desist a violation or produce the record, im not sure im finding that explicitly in the ordinance or in the charter. And so im just trying to figure out where we grab that power from. We have already eliminated the financial penalty, but im just struggling to find that here. Thanks. There were some good points raised. With respect to enforcement, i think it gives us some enforcement authority. Exactly what kind i agree is ambiguous. I think if it means anything it has to mean the ability to actually enforce. And demand that the records be turned over. With respect to the two different standards voting whether its three commissioners vote and that there is no violation or vote there is a fining of a violation, that has to do with t
Weird but i never thought my vote mattered and i want to preface this i dont understand the politics but i understand the Ethics Commission and the relationship with the Sunshine Ordinance Task force. It seems to be strange. Because they didnt want to send the case here. I asked them to so there was accountability on behalf of those at the Planning Department and our faith in government is there is accountability and responsibility and after six hearings with the sunshine ordinance and quite a long process i can tell you that he was given notice. Absolutely. He sent whoever was in charge of sunshine ordinance complaints to the first hearing and to the second hearing and that was accompanied by the acting Environmental Review officer Sarah B Jones and because i was concerned on time because i needed the files by the last administrative hearing they told mr. Rahaim or thomas de santo mentioned earlier they were to come to the tac what is it . [inaudible] compliance and Amendments Committ