Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Records topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Ethics Commission finds non-willful Sunshine Ordinance violation against Arts Commission; defers whether to order disclosure
Summary
The Commission found a non-willful violation for failure to cite a legal basis when withholding a requested email from a street-artist complainant and ordered staff to reconsider the withholding in light of new evidence and to enable an in-camera review of the document.
The Ethics Commission voted to find a non-willful violation of the Sunshine Ordinance after hearing a complaint from street artist Paula Dadish that the San Francisco Arts Commission failed to provide required statutory citations when withholding an email she had requested.
Dadish told the Commission she went to the Arts Commission office after a January inspection, later received a phone call in which Deputy Director Rebecca Kroll read an email's contents and identified the author, and then had the formal IDR request denied. Arts Commission Deputy Director Rebecca Kroll acknowledged that a responsive email existed but said staff had relied on prior city attorney guidance and that an informant later requested confidentiality.
Commission staff recommended finding a non-willful violation of the Sunshine Ordinance for the agency's failure to cite the statutory basis for withholding. The City Attorney's office disputed staff's legal interpretation about whether official-informant privileges survive the city Sunshine Ordinance.
The Commission voted (motion carried) to find a non-willful violation of section 67.27(a) for failing to provide the required justification, and deferred the separate question of whether the email itself should have been produced (section 67.21(b)) so staff can re-evaluate in light of testimony and so Commissioners may review the email in camera at the next meeting if necessary.
Why it matters: The threshold question is whether city departments can withhold documents that reveal complainant identities on the ground of informant/official-information privileges, and how the Sunshine Ordinance's balancing provisions apply. Commissioners said the facts presented at the meeting (including contradictory testimony about whether the complainant had heard the email read aloud) made an in-camera review appropriate.
What the Commission ordered: (1) a finding of a non-willful violation for the Arts Commission's failure to cite the basis for withholding, and (2) a referral back to staff to reconsider and to arrange a closed-session in-camera review of the email so the Commission can determine whether withholding under evidence-code privileges was appropriate.
