WHEN OPEN- government activists were drafting San Francisco's Sunshine Ordinance, they made a special point of carefully defining the role of the city attorney. There was a good reason for that: in the past, particularly under former city attorney Louise Renne, the city's chief legal officer consistently opposed open government and did everything possible to keep secret much of the workings of city hall.

Over and over again, journalists and civic activists would ask for copies of city records, and the mayor or some department head would seek the city attorney's help in hiding them, and the city attorney – with a taxpayer-funded staff – would find some way to deny public access.

So the drafters included specific language stating that the city attorney's job was "to protect and secure the rights of the people of San Francisco to access public information." But the law went beyond that: section 67.21(i) states that the city attorney "shall not act as legal counsel for any city employee or any person having custody of any public record for the purposes of denying access to the public."

But over the years, the City Attorney's Office – even under Dennis Herrera, who's been far better on sunshine issues than his predecessor – has consistently violated that provision.

The problem comes up regularly before the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force. Members of the public appear to complain about officials keeping documents secret, and they find themselves facing a well-trained deputy city attorney who knows how to use legalese to confuse people and obfuscate the issue. The task force's supposedly independent attorney, Ernest Llorente, who also reports to Herrera, typically doesn't challenge the other deputy city attorneys, and the public winds up outgunned.

As we reported last week, task force member Doug Comstock has brought this issue up repeatedly, to no avail. Herrera spokesperson Matt Dorsey told us section 67.21(i) doesn't apply when the city attorney has determined the records in question aren't public. That's a tortured bit of logic only a lawyer could love. It directly undermines the intent of the law: the rules were written to keep the City Attorney's Office from doing exactly what's it's doing, and Herrera should direct his deputies that they are not, under any circumstances, to help city officials keep documents secret.

Herrera also argues that the City Charter requires his office to represent city officials on all legal matters, and that's absolutely true. But when there's a clash between the Sunshine Ordinance and the charter, the City Attorney's Office can, and should, declare a conflict of interest and direct city officials to seek outside counsel.

The Sunshine Ordinance Task Force will be coming back next year with a new set of proposed revisions – and one of them should directly address this issue by clarifying the language to make it absolutely certain that San Francisco's city attorney is not on the side of secrecy.