My two recent complaints with the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force regarding what I believer to gross violations of public meeting and records laws, are wending their way through the SOTF process. The first complaint is against the Mayor and his two protocol staffers for failing to produce records disclosing the names of private donors who fund the Office of Protocol, which is not City-funded but nevertheless occupies space and wields tremendous influence at City Hall, and how much each donor contributed.
This note was sent to the named parties on Tuesday, Jan. 28, and a courtesy copy shared with me from the SOTF:
The second complaint grew out of the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency's January 21 hearing at City Hall, where the controversial daily $1 fee to be applied against Google and other private buses using City transit stops was on the agenda. That agenda was radically changed without proper advance notification, I allege, as I blogged about here. This is the note sent to the appropriate SFMTA and City Attorney officials:
You have been named as a
Respondent in the following complaint submitted by Michael Petrelis
against the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency.
In an attempt to
mediate and stave off a hearing before the Sunshine Ordinance Task
Force, please respond to the following request within five business
days.
Updates to follow as they become available.
Btw, I wish to mention that SF Pravda, alias the Bay Guardian, kvetched in an editorial this week about the secrecy of the SFMTA directors:
Yet the board of that supposedly independent agency just unanimously rubber-stamped the [Google bus fee] plan that had been crafted behind closed doors [...]
Unfortunately, the Bay Guardian says nothing about filing a sunshine complaint about the closed door meeting(s) where that plan was hatched, nor do they say if they've made a public records request or two seeking documents such as emails from the SFMTA directors either related to the plan or their private decision-making process.
If this progressive news outlet makes regular use of open meetings and records laws, or files complaints regarding various alleged sunshine violations, I am not aware of it and we sure could use them and others making good use of these laws and the SOTF.
Btw, I wish to mention that SF Pravda, alias the Bay Guardian, kvetched in an editorial this week about the secrecy of the SFMTA directors:
Yet the board of that supposedly independent agency just unanimously rubber-stamped the [Google bus fee] plan that had been crafted behind closed doors [...]
Unfortunately, the Bay Guardian says nothing about filing a sunshine complaint about the closed door meeting(s) where that plan was hatched, nor do they say if they've made a public records request or two seeking documents such as emails from the SFMTA directors either related to the plan or their private decision-making process.
If this progressive news outlet makes regular use of open meetings and records laws, or files complaints regarding various alleged sunshine violations, I am not aware of it and we sure could use them and others making good use of these laws and the SOTF.
1 comment:
Thanks, Mike, for your excellent and much-needed efforts to root out and expose the seeds of corruption in San Francisco city government.
Post a Comment