december 15th, 2011, and what i don't have in front of me is a calendar and i don't know if this is a situation whereby it was the friday request and we got back to him on monday and i don't know. >> it was a thursday and the response came on monday. >> okay. >> so what she says is on december 19, i reply by e-mail saying that there were no speaker cards response to his request number one, and i supplied copies of the speaker cards for the following meetings in response to his request and explained that there were no cards for any of the other meetings he had requested. so i don't recall it does not say in her letter to the sunshine task force whether it was an idr. and so, i don't know. >> for the record, what is the time requirement for the request? >> the business day the following day. >> thank you. >>

>> i appreciate that. >> i said that i will ask you the same question when or after you have presented unless you want to incorporate it. >> you can have it. >> i think that we have it. >> thank you. >> may i answer the question, because it is right here in your packet. >> you may incorporate it in your comments or answer it afterwards, it is up to you. >> all right. >> may i answer the question she asked it, it is right here in the packet. >> well, it is your turn to present. >> i don't want to spend my time on this issue. >> then i will ask you at the end. >> right now as the chair said your time is running now. >> mr. warfield. >> we are going to hear from the complainant now. >> that will be you. >> thank you for calling me madam chair. as a said in the public

comment, i think that this is an out rage that you are doing here now with respect to your procedures. this is, this procedure is being won as though i personally complained against kate patterson personally and there was no department head or elected official involved. mr. st. croix says, in his first paragraph, and when the respondent with kate patterson and the named complainant was peter warfield of the library users association and he goes on page 2 where he says, that task force referred this matter as a willful and this is on page 2 of the old letter and the second paragraph. >> the task in addition, under the section, such and such and however, miss patterson is not

an elected department head and thus this matter will be handled under chapter two of the commission for violations of the sunshine ordinance and so what mr. st. croix has done is define away the possibility that a document head might be responsible here and only it was a knife that did it so nobody could be held responsible. i have nothing to do with miss patterson and i am not sure that she was working with the arts commission at the time that i made the request on behalf of the library users association and she had nothing to do and she knows nothing personally about this. it is all what she has heard about. she is the employee of the arts commission, and the head of the arts commissioner at the very least ought to be considered responsible, and especially given the insistence and the long time... of the arts commission over many months

over a year and a half old complaint and the defiance over men months and i suspect that she will be in deep trouble if she on her own decided to turn any information over to me that they have not yet. and that is because the head is involved, and now, if he were ko tom here and say that i am not involved, it is the mayor, because that is how i got appointed, or the city attorney because that is who i follow religiously and i think that there might be an argument for that. go ahead and find that out. judge sirica but to claim that this follows the procedures of something that where no department head is involved, is absolute nonsense, if you look at the order of determination from the library or from the arts commission, i am sorry from the sunshine task force, library users association verses the san francisco arts commission, case number such and such and that is the april fifth determination, the

library users association alleged that the san francisco arts commission and it goes on and on like that. until finally, at the end of decision and order of determination on page 2, and the task force finds the sfac, that is the sf arts commission in violation of sections and so and so and and so on. and the next paragraph says that the arts commission shall release the speaker cards and so on and so forth. although the referal that she received from the later referal that you received directly to this body, which was written by the most recent chair of the sunshine ordinance task force simply, she is not talking, nobody is talking about kate patterson and peter war field

and especially not kate they were referring this to the case of the library users association against the arts commission for failing to respond to the immediate disclosure and request, such and such, goes over to the library users association and verses the arts commission, on march 7, the task force heard the complaint number so and so by the library users association, complainant. and against the san francisco arts commission respondent. and so it goes on and on in that way. and meanwhile you have covered your tracks. your agenda talks about a complaint of library users association against the arts commission. and yet, you are using the procedure that is appropriate for a non-department head, what is the arts commission that has a department head? and so i think that this is an out rage and this is backwards and you need it rehear this properly so that it follows the

procedures that you yourself have set up and someone looking at the facts and the documents will know who is complaining against whom. >> okay. >> the practical matter and i am not saying that you are right or wrong and as a practical matter, if we went and treated it as against the art commission, how would the procedure be different. in fact, as i look at it, there is less of a burden on you under section two than there is under section three. >> that may be the case, as far as burden goes. but as far as who you are ultimately going to find responsible under this procedure may be you will get the foot shoulder a slap on the wrist and the head of the department goes scott-free because according to this

formulation, no department head was involved. and under the formulation that very clearly has come forward to this body from the sunshine task force in its referal letter and in all of the documentation that supports it, it is very clearly is a department head matter and the department head has been asking miss patterson what would happen if she on her own would decide to turnover the documents that they have made a big deal about keeping away, i don't think that miss patterson is an independent actor, i think that the department head is and that is who you should be looking at as to who has responsibility, that is crucial. >> okay, mr. warfield. commissioners? >> commissioner studley? >> is there a rebuttal? >> there is a rebuttal. >> there is and i was going to say, i would like to speak to

the procedural matter if you want to take the rebuttal first that is fine >> just quickly. >> i think that mr. warfield makes a good point and it appears to me that the sunshine referal does frame the case as the library users association against the san francisco arts commission. to the extent that does carry consequences i would be interested to hear from the staff whether there is why it is different from the way that it came from us. we may want to consider sending it back to track the task force

referal. >> at the bottom of it, the enclosure it says peter warfield, kate patterson respondent. >> could you tell us, which document? >> the referal letter from the task force that says march 7, 2013. >> are you referring to the cclisting? >> correct, because this letter is to us. and the task force is ccing what presumably the people who are the complainant and the respondent. >> okay. >> and to me, it seems that those don't change the body of the letter, they are just saying, i would read it as on behalf of or in order to reach the complainant, you need they are mailing it to somebody at the user's association and someone at the arts commission and that is not controlling

relative to the nomination of the complaint. >> i am not trying to debate it with you that would seem to me a lay reading of it. >> i read the letter she appears as on... and represented. >> and it does not say that she is appearing personally, and she is appearing as a representative of the respondent. that is what the body of the letter and >> if you want to reschedule the matter that is fine. we will be happy to do that. we put that as there is no other person named in this letter, we want make a complaint against... we have never had any complaint against a body itself, there has to be a person. and you know, again, we will look at change thating procedure. >> i would like to hear the rebuttal. and furthermore, i am a little worried about requiring a department heads to show up for them to be on the hook, i mean,

they are on the hook ultimately, if we find a violation that occurs in their department. but, essentially what we will be saying then is potentially every violation of the sunshine ordinance or failure to turnover a document in a timely fashion would be under section 3, and i am not sure that is what we intended to do or what frankly if that benefits the complainant because the of burdenship as commissioner renne stated. >> i am very interested to hear. >> let's proceed to the rebuttal. >> miss patterson? >> just again, that note for us, this is really just an issue of privacy and it is very timely that the edwards snowden stuff should be in the media because really it was not about

obstructing anyone's process, or them trying to get information, it was just how are we as a staff supposed to make a call when we get a request from any member of the public for someone's personal information and we conducted with the city attorney because we felt that this was a sensitive issue and we were advised to redact that information and i also just want to show you what we did give mr. warfield just to show you that this is what our comment card looked like. and then, we have sense changed it so that we, there is not an address line, so this is an example of one of the redacted cards that we provided mr. warfield. so we learned something in this process and have adopted accordingly, so that the individuals righted to privacy will be protected should they want to participate in a public meeting that they even though they might not be aware that whatever they produce, at that public meeting is public record

as we can safe guard that i privacy, thank you. >> question? >> could we take questions for miss patterson? >> yes. >> miss patterson? questions for you. >> what was the purpose of requesting the address in the first place? >> you know, there was no, i don't think that there was a lot of thought put into it, we just thought that we just might want to, i don't know, i can't say, i don't think that there was a lot of thought into it, it was just of like putting a return address on something if they did provide information and maybe we would if there was an issue we could follow up with that person. that might have been the rationale, i honestly don't think that it was thought through. >> okay. >> and what capacity are you before us? right now? >> i am sorry? >> in what capacity? are you here as an individual? are you here representing the arts commission? >> i am the director of

communications and i represent the arts commission with on sunshine requests or sunshine related requests and i did respond to this order of determination, and i was party to the responses for some of these cards. and was one of the individuals who consulted with the city attorney with regard to the right of privacy and have been involved with this particular case in an early stage. >> who authorized you to be here? >> the director of cultural, and it is part of my job description to represent the agency on sunshine-related matters. >> i don't have anything further. >> questions? >> i was just wondering if you just have the new card? >> i don't have the new card, but i can tell you what it says now. i did mention somewhere but i think that i was rushing

through it. okay, it says now, you are not required to complete this card in order to make a public comment and you may speak anonymously if you wish and it does not have a line to addresses. >> so it is the main subject matter if you choose to. >> yes. >> exactly. >> okay. >> i am sorry, i did have one other question. so miss patterson, i have in our packet at least we have e-mails. >> yes. >> and it shows on december 15th, 2011, at 3:48 p.m. an idr was made, and the response was received monday december 19th, 2011. so then, do you dispute that this was untimely? >> no, i don't. >> thank you. >> i mean just to be clear, though, there were some things that did not exist. so those were not provided. >> further questions?

>> just to be clear. they did not exist because they were communication to say this they did not exist. >> yes, there was. >> but that communication was untimely. you agree that was untimely. >> if we failed to respond within the 24-hour period at the end of the business day the following day then yes, it was untimely. >> okay. >> one more question. >> yes. >> have you been designated the custodian of the public records for the arts commission? >> i don't have that official title, let's just say that we did a lot of sunshine requests, and they all kind of funnel through me and i over see responses and monitor a sunshine request log that we have on file. but i do not the keeper of all of the records, each individual program keeps their own records and is responsible for drafting initial responses to sunshine requests and for gathering records. >> but occasionally i will work

in that capacity. we will just share it. >> is someone or multiple people, are there other people in the agency who have the designation of custodian of public records? >> no >> i don't want to presume that it needs to be granted it may be that it is a fact and not an assignment. but i just wanted to ask if the agency has... >> no, we are a small agency and there is no one with that title at our agency. >> and maybe in addition to another title, but i appreciate your answer. >> thank you. >> yes. >> any further questions? >> public comment? >> i had a couple of questions for mr. warfield, if that is okay? >> yes. mr. warfield? >> mr. warfield, on what basis

do you think the address information of the individuals is valuable to be in the public record? >> this whole matter was part of multiple violations against the arts commission and the library commission over their interest in the destruction of the burnable heights mural, a 30-year old mural created by the community that had a considerable historic and and arts value that they were intent on destroying. and i hope that you did not understand, some of the speaker

cards they said they didn't have, and there was a secret when there are redactions, which i got the material it was electronic and when i came to the office to inspect the speaker cards. they tried to fool me. there was no indication that on most of them a quick look would not indicate that there was something missing, they had pasted over something white, and so you could not see that there was something redacted. as far as i am concerned, i don't have to say why i want something. and it is the obligation of a public record holder to provide

the information and if they don't provide it why it was withheld. if you are asking me why am interested? i am always interested in a complete record for a range of reasons it might not be the address but most people who come to a public meeting will be happy if someone who knew something or was in agreement or possibly disagreement with them, would be able to approach them as you can do in a real place and since i was not present in those meetings, and i didn't know that they were characterizing without anybody seeing it independently, she is call it private, how do we know that? there were people there, i

believe, from organizations who would be happy. it was the reason to get in touch with anybody who spoke on that issue at the meetings where the mural destruction was under discussion, they did not want the truth coming from me and possibly reaching to anybody else. what i am having a hard time figuring out is if you have a name and you have a business address and it does not exist and what is the additional public policy basis for meeting

someone's home address on a daoult document like tha. >> you don't know whether i got any business addresses and we don't know how. i don't any any of the redacted addresses. i don't know if there were phone numbers or home addresses. i don't believe that there is a horrible, and i don't consider addresses private, i consider your medical record and someone's psychological record, i consider that private and millions of people have their names and their phone numbers and their addresses in the phone book, and if they are worried about someone reaching them who they don't want, there is a whole range of ways that we have in our society of saying to people, please, i don't want to hear, about this

any more, i don't want to hear from you any more, don't send me anything any more and finally, legal, stay away orders and all kinds of ways in which people can get. but the address, where millions have posted for decades there are a million places that you can go to find out somebody's address, and that is not something personal. and we don't know what they redacted because they have never shown anybody outside of that department as far as i know, or certainly not anybody who is reviewing this, so we don't know what they redacted.

and i don't think that they have a right to do it. the board of supervisors has a thing saying... >> okay, thank you. >> you have answered my question. >> any further questions or comments? >> commissioner andrews? >> i am hearing mr. warfield what you are talking about and there is an assumption and the legal standing i will leave to the lawyers to really flesh out. but there is kind of an assumption that somebody works with good will and either agree with me or you will politely disagree with me. but you could understand with some caution to the not so private individual takes that information and something not so great happens with it within reason of redacting those addresses you are really protecting the privacy of a lot

of folks and possibly mitt indicating some kind of harm that may come to them. >> this is a particular issue that has two sides to it that often can have a heated component to it and i appreciate that you will want to find either advocates on a particular issue or talk on the opposition about it but i will be nervous that my address is out there and people can have it and do whatever they wanted to it. >> first of all the sunshine ordinance and the record act have very specific statements in the case of the public records act going on for page after page for police officers, judges, and psychological record, and medical records, they are very specific about what may be redacted or must be redacted. the address of somebody, whether it is the street address is not one of those things, if you go to the

property office, anybody owning property is listed there and at their address and this is an argument of par noya, and if you are worried about someone who will be stab to death, maybe you should have a meeting as a secret. >> maybe if you publish the room, someone might come in here and do something bad and it is a paranoya argument that has no end. it is never ending, the law says what may be redacted. and the law does not say that this material can be redacted. and other bodies recognize that, for example, the board of supervisors say that if you give this to us it is a public record and they do the same on the agenda so that the people will know if you send us a letter, don't include something

that you don't want the public to see. keep off our address, or hand it in without any mailing address whatever you want. but whatever you give us is a public record. and that is the law. >> thank you, mr. warfield. i think that you have explained your case. >> the question, before us, is in fact whether or not the san francisco arts commission is in violation of sunshine ordinance 67.25 a, for failure to respond in a timely manner, for failure to keep withholding to a minimum by providing unredacted speaker cards and for failure to justify withholding the redacted information. any further comments from the commission? >> commissioner studley? >> i am struggling with this issue about who the respondent

is. and now, i'm confused. i recognized the gravity of the distinction as commissioner hur pointed out. and tried to think about the consequences related to whether the agency typically is or should be represented by whether it is custodian or the person who is in fact the custodian of the records and so i don't think that there is a situation given the responsibility that in this agency goes along with being the director of communication and it is not a stray, junior, and employee who showed up yesterday. and who in the parade of horribles that we heard is taking the rap for the you know, the delay and the alleged willful failure and keep the withholding to a minimum. that said i am not sure what to do with it.

so i would appreciate hearing from the other commissioners in the staff whether they think that is in fact what we are doing here. or whether we are following the referal that we received even though the language has changed from the arts commission to respondent kate patterson of the arts commission or whether this is something that we ought to send back for reflection on that issue. or other s which i am not yet thinking of. >> you are talking about sending it back in a sense on a technicality? >> because we also have a variety of people representing their commission whether it was sue blackman, this evening, representing the library commission. >> and part of what i am asking is whether the complainant and in turn with sunshine task force, as the people who initiate and then r