Why doesn't Bevan Dufty want to vote on the Market/Octavia Project and the UC project?
FROM:
Mary Miles (SBN 230395)
Attorney at Law
San Francisco, CA 94102
TO:
Supervisor Bevan Dufty
San Francisco Board of Supervisors
Room 244, City Hall
1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place
San Francisco, CA 94102
DATE: April 7, 2008
By FAX to: (415) 554-6909; by e-mail; and by U.S. Mail.
IMMEDIATE DISCLOSURE REQUEST
REQUEST PURSUANT TO PUBLIC RECORDS ACT (Gov. Code §§6250 et seq.); and SAN FRANCISCO ADMINISTRATIVE CODE §§67 et seq., 67.25 (“SUNSHINE ORDINANCE”).
Dear Mr. Dufty:
Pursuant to the Public Records Act (California Government Code §§6250 et seq.), and the San Francisco “Sunshine Ordinance” (San Francisco Administrative Code §§67 et seq., 67.25), this is a request for immediate access to and the opportunity to get copies of the following documents.
1. In public hearings you have requested recusal from voting on measures on the Market-Octavia Project. Please provide all documents that have led to your request to be recused, including but not limited to the following:
a. Documents showing all real and personal property owned by you.
b. Documents showing assessed value of all real property owned by you.
c. Documents showing all real property transactions in which you have been involved.
d. Documents showing all campaign contributions and endorsements received by you.
e. Documents showing all campaign contributions promised to you.
f. Documents and records showing all communications you have received on the Market-Octavia Project from any individual, group, organization, business, and City staff, including electronic (e-mail), letters, memoranda, consultations, telephone calls, staff communications, and records of communications of any kind sent or received by you on the Market-Octavia Project.
g. Documents and records showing all conflicts of interest and any other reason why you have requited recusal from voting on the Market-Octavia Project.
2. In public hearings you have requested recusal from voting on measures on the University of California Extension development Project, aka “55 Laguna” Project, aka “218-220 Buchanan” project. For purposes of this Request, please include as the Project all proposals for development by any entity or person, including the University of California and their Regents, A.F. Evans, and Openhouse, and any other entity that will engage in the implementation of this Project if it is approved. Please provide all documents that have led to your request to be recused, including but not limited to the following:
a. Documents showing all real and personal property owned by you.
b. Documents showing assessed value of all real property owned by you.
c. Documents showing all real property transactions in which you have been involved.
d. Documents showing all campaign contributions and endorsements received by you.
e. Documents showing all campaign contributions promised to you.
f. Documents and records showing all communications you have received on the “55 Laguna” Project from any individual, group, organization, business, and City staff, including electronic (e-mail), letters, memoranda, consultations, telephone calls, staff communications, and records of communications of any kind sent or received by you on the Market-Octavia Project.
g. Documents and records showing all conflicts of interest and any other reason why you have requested recusal from voting on the “55 Laguna” Project.
If I have not received a response and all materials requested within twenty-four hours (one business day) of your receipt of this Request, I shall deem this Request denied and shall so inform the Court.
Thank you for your immediate attention to and action on this Request.
Sincerely,
Mary Miles
Mary Miles (SBN 230395)
Attorney at Law
San Francisco, CA 94102
TO:
Supervisor Bevan Dufty
San Francisco Board of Supervisors
Room 244, City Hall
1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place
San Francisco, CA 94102
DATE: April 7, 2008
By FAX to: (415) 554-6909; by e-mail; and by U.S. Mail.
IMMEDIATE DISCLOSURE REQUEST
REQUEST PURSUANT TO PUBLIC RECORDS ACT (Gov. Code §§6250 et seq.); and SAN FRANCISCO ADMINISTRATIVE CODE §§67 et seq., 67.25 (“SUNSHINE ORDINANCE”).
Dear Mr. Dufty:
Pursuant to the Public Records Act (California Government Code §§6250 et seq.), and the San Francisco “Sunshine Ordinance” (San Francisco Administrative Code §§67 et seq., 67.25), this is a request for immediate access to and the opportunity to get copies of the following documents.
1. In public hearings you have requested recusal from voting on measures on the Market-Octavia Project. Please provide all documents that have led to your request to be recused, including but not limited to the following:
a. Documents showing all real and personal property owned by you.
b. Documents showing assessed value of all real property owned by you.
c. Documents showing all real property transactions in which you have been involved.
d. Documents showing all campaign contributions and endorsements received by you.
e. Documents showing all campaign contributions promised to you.
f. Documents and records showing all communications you have received on the Market-Octavia Project from any individual, group, organization, business, and City staff, including electronic (e-mail), letters, memoranda, consultations, telephone calls, staff communications, and records of communications of any kind sent or received by you on the Market-Octavia Project.
g. Documents and records showing all conflicts of interest and any other reason why you have requited recusal from voting on the Market-Octavia Project.
2. In public hearings you have requested recusal from voting on measures on the University of California Extension development Project, aka “55 Laguna” Project, aka “218-220 Buchanan” project. For purposes of this Request, please include as the Project all proposals for development by any entity or person, including the University of California and their Regents, A.F. Evans, and Openhouse, and any other entity that will engage in the implementation of this Project if it is approved. Please provide all documents that have led to your request to be recused, including but not limited to the following:
a. Documents showing all real and personal property owned by you.
b. Documents showing assessed value of all real property owned by you.
c. Documents showing all real property transactions in which you have been involved.
d. Documents showing all campaign contributions and endorsements received by you.
e. Documents showing all campaign contributions promised to you.
f. Documents and records showing all communications you have received on the “55 Laguna” Project from any individual, group, organization, business, and City staff, including electronic (e-mail), letters, memoranda, consultations, telephone calls, staff communications, and records of communications of any kind sent or received by you on the Market-Octavia Project.
g. Documents and records showing all conflicts of interest and any other reason why you have requested recusal from voting on the “55 Laguna” Project.
If I have not received a response and all materials requested within twenty-four hours (one business day) of your receipt of this Request, I shall deem this Request denied and shall so inform the Court.
Thank you for your immediate attention to and action on this Request.
Sincerely,
Mary Miles
Labels: Bevan Dufty, Neighborhoods
posted by Rob Anderson @ 9:50 PM
7 comments
7 Comments:
Doesn't he live just a block or two away from that UC campus?
So what? He is, after all, legally obligated to live in his district.
Is living nearby enough reason that Dufty could recuse himself?
Could be, but we need to see what the City Attorney is telling Dufty about this.
Now that his 24 hours are up, did Dufty deliver?
Talk about making a mountain of a mole hill... A story in this week's BAR says, "Openly gay Supervisor Bevan Dufty recused himself from the vote because he owns a home near the site, which consists of almost six acres of land."
According to the law, Dufty doesn't have to actually provide the information requested in 24 hours; all he has to do is respond within 24 hours.
Dufty's history on the UC land-grab is despicable. For years he took no position at all on the awful project, though I'm convinced he has been negotiating behind the scenes with openhouse, the gay chauvinist housing concern. If his recusal is only a matter of his owning property nearby, we'd still like to see what the City Attorney has told him.
And there's a larger issue in a city that has district elections. The city is divided into 11 relatively small supervisorial districts, which the supervisors are obligated to live in. How close/far from a project must a supervisor live and/or own property before a conflict of interest issue arises? The UC project is huge and will impact Dufty's district---for the worse, I'm convinced---which makes his recusal important.
Post a Comment
<< Home