December Sunshine News
12 Dec 2021SOTF’s December rulings:
SOTF unanimously found numerous violations by the Planning Commission - 67.7(a) failure to give 72 hour agenda notice; 67.7(c) failure to provide the location of a meeting in the agenda; 67.13(a) barrier to attendance for disabled persons; 67.15(a) failure to provide opportunity for public comment. The Commission went ahead and conducted a public meeting (with numerous actions as well) in which the agenda it posted prior to 72 hours directed the public to a meeting ID that was incorrect (where the public had no listening or commenting access). They were notified during the meeting by complainant Planthold, yet continued to conduct the meeting. Part way through the meeting they altered the agenda online with the correct id (clearly not 72 hours before!). In addition to the general violation of the law, the methods they used to provide the new ID would not be available to deaf and blind persons. Shame on whoever advised the Commission to just continue conducting an unnoticed, unlawful public meeting. The only correct action was to adjourn the meeting until it could be properly noticed to the public. What is also appalling is the Commission’s argument at SOTF that since most people watch SFGovTV it was permissible to simply continue with the meeting, as if the constitutional right to access meetings is simply for most people, and not all people. Personally, I hope someone steps up to sue and now invalidate the actions of the Planning Commission during that meeting, like recently happened to the School Board for violating the Brown Act.
SOTF failed to find a violation (5-4 for violation; requires 6) against City Librarian Lambert. An anonymous complainant requested from Lambert contracts & communications between the Library Commission and a corporation. While library-related contracts do exist with that same corporation, the Library Commission wasn’t a party to them. This is probably only the 2nd time ever I’ve argued for no violation myself – Lambert (IMO correctly & timely the next day) said that such contracts don’t exist. The 5-person majority view appears to be that Lambert: did in fact know what Anonymous really meant (as he had asked for similar contracts in the past, but with different wording), did not completely provide the relevant contracts, and failed to assist properly; but it did not reach 6 votes. (A caution to the City: “Feigned confusion based on a literal interpretation of the request is not grounds for denial.” (First Amendment Coalition v Superior Court (1998))).
SOTF affirmatively found no violation (6-3 for no violation) by City Administrator Chu regarding their response to a request from the Living Wage Coalition. The Minimum Compensation Ordinance calculations sought apparently do not exist. And the “written confirmation” re: the MCO (a budget checklist merely saying the MCO was considered) was apparently not created until 4 days after the request was made. Personally I was on the fence; there might have been a violation regarding assistance, but it was a close call. (It’s possible that the work of the Living Wage Coalition through many similar complaints shows a broad violation of the MCO, but not necessarily of the Sunshine Ordinance - in fact, perhaps by agencies admitting that calculations don’t exist is how one might prove that the MCO was violated)
The SOTF approved various further procedural improvements making non-substantive changes to the complaint procedure to put it in plain English for the complainant, suggestions for a format for complainants to prepare their evidence effectively, a substantive change limiting what documents can be considered in a Reconsideration, and setting out their expectations of how hearing packets should be prepared, while also receiving advice from the Clerk of the Board (who attended) regarding the problems with using Granicus as a database for SOTF and the limitations of what the Clerk’s office can do in preparing complaints/agenda packets. The SOTF did not amend or rescind the November-approved pilot improvements regarding requirements of specific written responses from the Respondent, which continues in full force. I hope SOTF continues to make more streamlining improvements such as these.