Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Records Management topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Ethics commissioners review updated records-management policy, push for clearer rules on emails and private devices
Summary
The San Francisco Ethics Commission considered a draft update to its Records Management Policy that would treat emails and other electronic communications as public records when they document city business; staff will return with edits after public comment on retention periods, private-device records and page-numbering of the draft.
The San Francisco Ethics Commission on Wednesday reviewed a draft update to its Records Management Policy that, staff said, adopts a broader definition of public records and clarifies how electronic communications should be retained.
Leanne Pelham, presenting the policy update, told commissioners she had incorporated the Sunshine Ordinance and California Public Records Act definitions into the draft and expanded guidance to treat emails, internet postings and electronic calendar entries as potential public records when they document city business. "We don't wanna have to search everybody's emails whenever there's a public records request," Pelham said, explaining staff will train employees to file qualifying messages in case folders or export them to the office's electronic filing system.
The draft also revises the retention schedule: Category 1 items are permanent (agendas, executive director reports, minutes and SFGOVTV recordings), and a default Category 4 retention period of two years was proposed for many non-permanent transactional records. Pelham said the policy defines an "optical imaging system" broadly to allow modern PDF scanning and other portable digital formats for permanent retention.
Public commenters and commissioners pressed for clarifications. Several speakers — including members of Friends of Ethics and public commenters — urged explicit treatment of records on private devices and accounts, citing recent controversies over elected officials using private phones for city business. "There does not seem to be any reference to private emails or private use of ... private electronic devices," one commenter said, urging the Commission to clarify whether such material should be treated as public records if used for city business.
Commissioners also requested clearer page numbering, better alphabetization of record types and more precise categories for employee-related records (for example, "employee timesheets"). Staff said the item was intended as policy guidance and will return to the Commission after city-attorney review and additional edits.
The Commission treated the discussion as an informational policy guidance item; no final adoption occurred at this meeting. Staff said they expect to bring a revised version for formal consideration once comments are incorporated and legal review is complete.
