response and unfortunately i was not aware of the specific codes in the code section that relates to the lunge which obviouslyi am now. >> so just so i'm clear you're saying you never told her who sent the e-mail. >> correct. >> i mean it seems to me that the overwhelm will resolve the issue if we see the overwhelm we will know who is telling the truth. >> the documents related to this case are public documents and we put the overwhelm in there. >> i know you can't put it in the public packet u packet but

we want to review the overwhelm in question. >> to clarify myself and another investigator saw the overwhelm we didn't roach that who the sunshine ordinance allowed them to use this privilege so if we puts the overwhelm in our packet it becomes a public document and because this year's a question of who the document should be confidential until you made the determination of the sunshine louts the privileges, however, we read the section in a way that we believed explicit allow for it so i understand why you want to see the overwhelm i don't know why, why the

question. >> shows described the overwhelm in pretty specific daily the overwhelm sounds like what it describes and first of all, she knows the concerned and the context all the rational we wouldn't reach that the identity privilege is not- >> tonight is the first time that overwhelm was read out loud i don't know that so you know, i said why you know the overwhelm should have been tonight but we felt the legal question noted to be answered before we submitted e-mail. >> we received a followup written by the informant requesting the overwhelm be

confidential and this person impressed strong concerns about the e-mail being made public then other i mean other information she didn't want included in any kind of investigation she was very concerned. >> if i recall i've never spoken to this this was an 835 market street the mother is from hong kong and very respectful of human resources space so the daughter does speak english and how i have never i saw the overwhelm because the mother showed that to me after that i never had a conversation with them how would this daughter

accepted a followup e-mail expressing concerns that the first e-mail remained private and that her identity not be revealed if how does that portion come back about except of howard come out to the street and whispered something in her area that's one of the main problems i also added to the fact the oh, my god was read to me over the phone by rebecca crow and the fact that in the original i dr or january 20th the response of rob can crow due to the right to maintain confidentiality in the course of an investigation we have to documents in response to your

request no documents yet she said lacerate to investigators went to the investigation officers there was an e-mail what's going on with ms. crow and her records we don't know clearly in the original response she doesn't accredit any portion of any law whether the sunshine ordinance which she she hesitate 40 has no training i find is it count they've overlooked a site and very difficult and the allegation i call constantly that is not true since they never pick up the phone none of that is true it's important recordkeeping awhile i keep the previous orders ever

determination that's a large part of why they get violations bad sunshine laws and no recordkeeping and the inability do note down did it conversation to that i don't recall maybe i don't remember she read the e-mail over others phone how would i know the identity none of this make sense i'm telling the truth bottom line i have a videotape she roughed to see it i got a novice of warning i interrupted the staff person by blocking my stand directing your attention of an investigation didn't happen and eyewitness to the event i've seen the overwhelm it is not rfrlt to that and

suddenly an overwhelm asking her identity to remain secret. >> we've horde our argument as i understand the staff represents it bans the way the staff interprets the lapsing of 6 is point 74 i think it is 67 point 24 i that the sort of balancing test didn't apply because that's section and the city attorney says it's a.m. bigger i disagree are the staffer but basically, she never accredited the section any section which shows required to do under the code.

>> anyway any other public comment? >> i would caution you about david. >> i just want to make clear the two questions the one question of whether when the document the overwhelm was not turned over there was a proper statement about the basis for disclosure that's one question and the second question whether she should have and actually turned over the e-mail those are two separate questions i'm happy to be heard it it's the second question i have a dive view from the staff. >> i didn't read the staff recommendation it should be turned over she said it was a violation of the sunshine ordinance for failing to cite

the section. >> i'll let the stat so to speak but the staff reached the tentative conclusion that the thinking format identity privilege explicit exist in san francisco because it is agreeing gaited by the sunshine ordinances that is a conclusion which the city attorney's office strongly, strongly disagree are scaping implications so before the commission reaches a decision about that question i'll appreciate the opportunity. >> may i have. >> affidavit as an individual i'm not speaking as a member or representing the task force i'm not a respondent or member of the staff i was not bound by the 5 business days in charter 3

just could walk 0 through identify provided a paragraph summarizing any relationship too the complainant and the responsibility you a little bit about that i think they're being today to each other and probably continuing second i explained in my way why i believe this is problematic this hearing before the commission i think it opens the door for a lot of complaints to be heard that was not what was the purchase the complainant didn't bring this to the task force more my understand did the complainant seek through the city attorney supervisors of records a determination of whether the underlying oh my god was public i have a couple of patrol officers on the merits to citing reasons for withholding and the

underlying overwhelm should be public i'll get back to that the letter from the city attorney i generally concur with i building that josh will want to hear that i believe that 6724 g and i didn't preinclude asserting the privileges and that the 6255 balancing test was specifically not included from use in the city but asserting the two arts are the same balancing test or similar balancing test coming back to what we heard tonight, tonight was the first time i horde or read the complainant allege that the overwhelm was read i have to think further as deeventually

the identity of the content of the overwhelm waves any privilege the consonant asserts i think that was with commissioner hur was going i don't know the answer and the responsibility of pirates in summary i think there is a violation here it is a violation of 67 point organization for failure to accredit the applicable code section for withholding and i think on balance that will not a 6255 balance but that withholding was justified by the evidence code i'll be happy to answer any questions otherwise thank you >> in your packet there's no page number on the bottom but it said an additional overwhelm i

sent to rebecca country on june 16th an i dr kwgd the overwhelms only friday january 2nd, 2015 you said you'd send the overwhelm to me on january 5th after speaking with howard you explicit when i was able to get you occupy the phone you accredited the overwhelm and the name of concerned and you said it was forwarded to you by howard you read it to me i requested a copy i'm making this request pursuant to the sunshine ordinance. >> we have that. >> there were two e-mails sent on two different dates. >> commissioner vice president

andrews. >> mr. chair ms. crow would you step back our practices going forward. >> so you were had mentioned that that the department goes through past requests and matches them against the ongoing investigations to help guide with you with the response did you in the past accredit this specific ordinance or the exception that will apply to any other questions that unfortunately you'll noted be able to honor is there a history ever you're not being specific. >> i was responsible for responding to the public information request only temporarily awhile our public information officer was on maternity leave imagines a general practice we do not withhold documents it is

unusual for that but i'll have to look at the records and see how often that issue arises. >> you didn't look to throw the actual responded. >> only the prior response. >> no, i have not. >> okay. >> commissioners that is. i think the gentleman wanted to say something jess deputy city attorney i want to clarify maintained and maybe answer some of the commissioner hur's kwaez questions 0 so staff did american people investigation and staff reviewed the overwhelm include that, in fact it was given to the arts commission and included if it was turned over it about explores the identity

of the person who submitted because generally those are held in open session that factual representation of the staffs novels would be sufficient for the commissioner that not correct then obviously he can come back and address that issue but that was the determination done by staff and once that - >> i'll agree the commission can accept that factual recommendation and it is not a requirement that you submitted a document it is within our authority to accept that factual recommendation from staff. >> so in staff and doing it's analysis determined given that and the assertion by the arts commission they're relying only this project went analyze it is

why we reached it conclusion we think that is a difficult issue we tried to make clear in the analysis that we don't think there's a clear answer quite frankly and that you know if we had to come to a determination and give a recommendation we appreciate the fact whether it was called for by the city attorney's office we see that is a primary not a factual issue but really a local issue to the extent you disagree. >> i'm not sure how it can't be a local issue how could 1040 come into play if the complainant knows the identity and the content of the overwhelm in question. >> i'll say that maintained is the first time we're hamburger about that is tonight. >> beige i be that as it may if

she knows and this is a what the overwhelm is about i mean, i found it city attorney's analysis helpful but we don't get there in my view we need to see the overwhelm there is clearly a violation as state by whether the overwhelm should be turned over we need to see that i guess it which seem pursuant we in advance if it is not from- we go through this further analysis i mean it spokeswoman the complainant is convinced that's the overwhelm and if it is not then scholl agree that is fairly a big credibility as it turns this overwhelm is from

her. >> i'll agree to the extent it was already turned over this will definitely bear on this issue would reiterate yeah. this is the first time we're hearing about this 0 as far as; right? >> right and. >> ism you know i will concur if there recent actually been a waiver seshl and the arts commissions contention or contents of the overwhelm whether or not there's an official information and identity privilege in san francisco. >> the issue is you could get is to the document if it needs to be turned over but not necessarily a violation we don't know to the extents this is the

complainant has been identified you know it is possible that the compliant was identified after in fact the request was made for the document to be turned over in the first time. >> i don't see how that matters if she knows it now that's who it is the whole benefit of the 1040 has been lost so is strikes me as different for an entity to claim privilege to the person they're trying to keep it from. >> and guess it depends on how it turns out if, in fact ms. dash didn't learn about the identity that may bear on the question of waiver noted who it was improper to actively turnover the e-mail. >> does that make sense okay.

>> commissioner vice president andrews you acquired the omen e-mail from the mother. >> i learned the informant audio went up to their offices i was told on monday, i would get an overwhelm when i called her own tuesday morning been 10:30 i was lucky to get her open the phones she never you returns phone calls she read the overwhelm e e-mail to me so they read it in its intoirt i said okay. please send it to me i'm not not okay. i'll make an i dr for this e-mail i'm still not sending it. >> so i learned the identities the finest happened other than

the second he learned the identity on the 6th on the 7th i politely they sit behind a stand and their pollutant so i've known the mother for years and represented her she didn't speak especially do you know nothing about an e-mail she showed me one overwhelm that claimed that was a subsequent overwhelm where the daughter was so requested the confidentiality for fear of retaliation prior harassment didn't exist at that time this was a subsequent e-mail. >> you don't actually sit in my any kind of electronic form you read it. >> through another source that was the informant of the

relative of the informant i don't know maybe i misread it you thought you- >> mother didn't couldn't send me she didn't speak english shows from hong kong i didn't want to upset set the daughter that stand has an numerous amount of violation there's glargz violations so no i never received are it not even in pits redacted form. >> okay. >> is there a motion? >> can we look at it in camera is that possible to

do? legally i don't i mean, i don't think the bylaws you know include that is is an option are you aware of the bylaws including that as an option? could i speak to this question it's at the discretion of the commission >> david in my extensions on and off the task force the task force often has to deal with the assert privilege and never told it has the opportunity to view a document in camera this is the first time i've heard from any city attorney i find nothing in the charter in our authorized or in the ordinance that provided for any kind of in camera view i'll cooperative that with the

brown act that has specific instructions by a judge under certain facts and circumstances circumstances this is all knew i think you can only take the staffs word and your determination wage bear circle on the review of a document i wish i did i wish there was a way to do that not a way under the current law. >> if we could take a couple of minutes briefcases i'll consultant. >> i understand it the staff said they reviewed it and properly withheld. >> the staff is saying that if this informant privilege exists in san francisco then it was

properly brould correct me if i am wrong but they don't believe the privilege you know does apply so as i said the commission could accept and a as true the staff's recommendation if the privilege exists in san francisco the documents was properly withhold. >> the legal question who the staff is right in pits interpretation of law perhaps but i don't think we have to reach that because let's say the staff is wrong and the city attorney is right and this was properly withheld under the code that opinion will change if they knew the information was disclosed to the recipe prior to the question being made.

>> so you wouldn't get to the issue of the 83 phone number applies. >> for purposes of what we're dealing with whether or not there's a vision of sunshine rule and we clearly she didn't comply with setting forth the basis for which they roughed to produce. >> they have two violations in the recommendation that ms. crow commented a non-violation for the digestion for the withholding of the public record and she committed non-local violations by withholding a public record and to me b is right for diversity reasons has nothing to do with with this policy question of what legal standard applies if ms. i'm

sorry. >> danish was provided the information for request. >> it's true in the request was made and the next day the arts commission reads the e-mail to ms. audacious this is a different case if the arts commission had not produced that document. >> i'll add it seems to me there - folks can correct me if i am wrong there's a discretionary between testimony of the parties as to when that information was conveyed if at all to the complainant and that is a determination as to - >> is that true? that

>> what's discretionary and she said she never told her. >> there was a friday call that ms. danish remembered a subsequent call that ms. crow there was two conversations i had around this particular issue that's right. >> this is the first conversations. >> the timeline i can't think second was 45 minutes long-winded bizarre inspection i packed up around 4 o'clock going out go up others arts commission and crow cracks open the door didn't want to see the video and not make an appointment but he'll talk to lazzaro thank you very much no overwhelm the following monday wore into tuesday which is the ofth around ten amy was lucky to get her on

the phone impossible to get anyone on the arts commission they don't return phone calls or e-mails she read the e-mail to me provided me the name of the person i said who is rats so that's the stand next to you that's the daughter she claims you videoed her stand no, i didn't can you send me that attached if you no, i'm not going to send you i'll send an i dr asking for that e-mail i'm not going to send it to you she provided the identity and read me the e-mail and then we found out from an investigation there were two e-mails from her with the second one saying