(1) CPRA Gov Code 6253(c) requires Chesa to state whether disclosable responsive public records exist. Instead Chesa says that both responsive public records do NOT exist, and somehow are ALSO being withheld. That's literally impossible. Disclosable != responsive.
-
-
Show this thread
-
(2) CPRA Gov Code 6253(d) requires Chesa to state the name and title of every person responsible for denying
@AnnieGaus access to the information. Note the unsigned response that LACKS a specific human's name to hold responsible.Show this thread -
(3) SF Admin Code 67.24(a) prohibits Chesa's citation to Gov Code 6254(a) for draft documents as a whole and only allows its use for a specific portion of such documents, to the extent that draft recommendations of the author may be withheld.
Show this thread -
(4) Re: supposed privilege: I have indeed received - from Chesa - prior DA Gascon's disposition memos, in the past, for example:pic.twitter.com/JArKqb7PBU
Show this thread -
(5) SF Admin Code 67.27: Chesa must state in writing the specific exemption/privilege for the records withheld in this specific request. In reality, this letter of exemptions is purely boilerplate. It's the same he uses in a number of different requests.
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
SFUSD has begun replying to any request saying it’s overbroad, or that records weren’t retained, based on requests people are sending me asking if the responses are appropriate. I am also not a lawyer. But a lawyer should sort out why this city has such contempt for transparency.
-
Sadly SFUSD is not under local Sunshine law. CPRA is written far more pro-official than SF's pro-public Sunshine laws.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Yes! Thank you so much for laying this out
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.