discuss his request. i have summarized all the documents provided to him and on may 2nd, 2012 at the sunshine ordinance task force meeting i provided a cd with all the documents. although we e-mailed all those documents we offered a cd to him and to the task force. at the same task force meeting, the task force ruled that our department is required to provide the e-mails in original format and not pdf copies and it was on cd. since i didn't know how to format the e-mails and forwarded to the requester i suggested they have them download to c d and i asked for

his mail address and i can mail those cd's to them. as of today, mr. nooi man has not been willing to meet with us. comment on this? >> david popel in this instance i think the d p w have met and gone above and beyond to offer to meet with the complainant. it has the back project that was looking for some financial controls. i was also concerned

that this particular complaint was addressed to both mr. new rue and was the department head at the time and might also be bifurcated to chapter 3 hearing and it wasn't calendared. you can deal with mr. lee tonight. i don't know if you need to recalendar that as a chapter 3 matter. even if however your intent is to dispose of it, i think you can only dispose of mr. lee tonight. i'm not suggesting we dispose of mr. lee, just the matter. >> i guarantee you are not

disopposing of mr. lee. >> was he a department head at the time? >> my understanding was that he was in training, interim department head. this is not a violation. that's why it's under chapter 2. >> okay. mr. lee, are you here speaking for mr. nir u as well. >> i'm speaking for the department. i handle records and public request and even though given to mr. new rue to respond. >> was there any other public comment on this item? questions for mr. lee? mr.

lee, i have got to say, it -- maybe i'm naive but it was shock to go me shock to to me there were no document for approval for the hundred thousand dollars projector an allowing it to go over by 3 percent. >> we were shocked too and that's why i explained to the task force and why it was being discussed to employees. in city government sometimes it does take time to get all the employees to buy in on what needs to change and that's what essentially happened. >> whose e-mails did you look through to see if there was any approval? >> the people that mr. nooim an asked. those are people in

charge of the project. >> okay. any other questions for mr. lee? comments from the commissioners on this agenda item? >> it sounds like an exhaustive search was done and documents compiled and documents provided on cd's. sounds like there is nothing else. >> i agree. anything else? is there a motion to find that the respondents have met their burden and find no violation of

67.21 c and 67.21 e regarding this >> so moved? second? >> all in favor? >> aye. >> motion passes. the last complaint on our agenda tonight is 09-023. respondent lazar. i see mr. lazar and mr. clark. mr. lazar you bare the bear the burden.

you have five minutes. thank you for your patience. >> good evening commissioners. i'm howard lazar director of the street lighting program and doing this for four-and-a-half years. anyway, i will take this, when i came here this evening, i handed out this portfolio to each of you so you can follow it with me please. i'm going to address each of the sunshine task force charges against me. the first charge is 67.21 b for failure to release information to mr. clark within ten days of receiving the public records request. i hardly agreed and at the task force hearing of july 26 and august 23 of 2011 my argument

was to the task force members in a statement i have written and was read by a representative. in the statement i said "we state that the clarks are correct. do you to the oversight we did not respond to the question. we drafted a reprivate. we apologize for their error and wish to take this opportunity now to convey our response to the clark's questions. i did furnish those responses to the questions at both task force meetings." now moving on second charge which the 67.22 b for failure to release public information to mr. clark on a timely and responsive basis. in response to the first charge i have

already stated that at 2 task force meetings i publically acknowledged and apologized for my failure to release information on a timely basis. however at the same two hearings, i took the opportunity to convey a statement read by representative my response to the questions. i have furnished you with my statement which was read at the two hearings and the statement includes responses to mr. clark's questions. who ill this public information was not released on a timely basis it was nonetheless released to mr. clark on a responsive basis by virtue of those two hearings. furthermore after the last of those two hearings, mr. clark, on august 29, 2011, mr. clark sent me an e-mail regarding his proposal for the designation of

street spaces or hey street. i fully responded to the question on page 2 of the letter to mr. clark on september 13. you have a copy that have letter before you in this section. while admitting my failure to respond on a timely basis i did respond to mr. clark thoroughly and on a responsive basis in the two task force hearings related to the subject matter. then the third sunshine task force charge 67.21 e for failure to send a knowledgeable representative to the task force hearing. i disagree for the following reasons. no. 1, the city attorney had adviced me that it would be legal for me to send a representative

even from a temp agency as long as they are responding to the resident. in keeping with the advice i draft a representation which was submitted. on july 2011 from me requesting her response to the drafted statement. i'm also directing your attention then i don't have much time to also see the attached statement which was thoroughly reviewed by the city attorney at two hearings. the same july 26 and august 23rd. in the city attorney's review of the statement deemed it to be accurate and thorough

in the contents response and would fully -- do you want know continue or shall i stop. >> your time is up. you have rebuttal time. >> good evening. i'm the person who did start the street artist program for over 40 years. i'm trying to get spaces for that time. i wrote proposition j which was approved by the voters in 1974 and later an appealed by the ordinance. i want to dispute what mr. lazar just said. he did not make any statements at the july task force. in fact when our hearing

came up i was in the middle of giving my presentation and his representative and himself left the meeting in the middle of my presentation and no statement was given by either of them at that particular meeting. i want to make you aware of what this was about that on the date of the spaces i have them there that were sent to the board of supervisors, it took 22 months before that, 22 months earlier. i had the art commission prove the resolution that went to the board of supervisors and took me 24 months before that where i presented the proposal to the commission arts commission. it took him 22 months to put anytime front it in front of the board of supervisors and he

had been putting other spaces in front of the board of supervisors and i sent an angry e-mail to him saying it was 22 months before my bill was passed. how long is it going to take. at the board of supervisors meeting it gave him an opportunity to come up with a compromise. they came up with a suggested compromise and the item was put on the call of the chair. i left that meeting while thinking there was something in the works and i waited a year before i contacted mr. lazar and asked him what was happening. at that time i found out -- that's when i didn't get any response to

him from him, i was asking, what's going on. have you heard from the valley merchants with regard to this proposal. what happened at that time that's when after i found out all this time later after going through the complaint and that you will stuff, i found out that the answer to my question was no, nothing has ever happened between the arts commission and the hayes valley merchants. so all this time i went through all these hearings, mr. lazar was present at the hearing but left in the middle of the hearing. all he had to do was sent me an e-mail saying nothing has ever happened. as a result of that, i went back to the board of supervisors, they told me after 30 days everything is dumped into the trash can and i asked mr. lazar to recalendar the item to the board of supervisors and he

refused to reintroduce the item saying it wasn't part of the resolution. this whole time sense i have been waiting for this meeting with the board of supervisors which was over a year then i asked him a question then i had to go to the task force, the first hearing he left in the middle of it. we continued it for a month and finally i believe mr. man toes did state later on that nothing has occurred. so for all that time, all he had to do was tell me that nothing had occurred and i wouldn't have even filed a compliant at the sunshine ordinance task force. all i needed was an answer and i feel that the fact that he refused to let it even let me know after 30 days my proposal was going to be thrown in the garbage can was done deliberately so my proposal

would be trashed and as of now i still have not been in front of the board of supervisors on my proposal. if you have any questions i will be glad to answer them. >> thank you. mr. lazar? rebuttal? >> well, you heard a history of an issue. but the question is whether or not i violated the sunshine task force. i would like to say that i'm furnishing you -- first of at all task force said in a fourth charge that i willfully violated the ordinance under section 634 based on inadequate responses and repeated violations of the sunshine ordinance and failure to comply with the sunshine

ordinance. i'm furnishing you request that i responded from february 2010 to february 2013. i have also furnished you with the records of hours spent annually by me in research in response to sunshine request and prep for sunshine hearing. 227.55 hours and current fiscal year of 16.15 hours. i may have been technically in violation for failing to release information. while admitting to not responding on a timely basis. i did respond with a letter to mr. clark. i did not

send a knowledgeable representative. i followed the attorneys advice. it's suggestive and contradictory provided to me by my city attorney and finally after respond to go request that were thoroughly received by the city attorney. i disagree with the task force finding that i have inadequate responses and a lack of intent to comply with the sunshine ordinance in the future, unquote. i would be more than happy to answer any questions. >> thank you. public comment on this matter? >> my name is robert clark. i'm a witness to the fact that mr. lazar did not stay for the meeting that he claims he was at. my brother was talking and he ran out of the meeting, took his representative with him and they never returned to the meeting. that's why the meeting was postponed for another month

to give him an opportunity to be there. that it's an outside right lie. i don't know about his other question, but all the ones that my brother and i have filed against him, he's been found in violation. if he just responded to the questions we were asking. the representative, he kept sending to the meetings had absolutely no not knowledge on the issues and they told him not to come in anymore and they wanted mr. lazar himself to come to those meetings and for him to stand up here today and lie to you, if anything else i request that this commission listen to those two meetings continue this for another hearing. listen to those two hearings so you can determine for yourself that who

is telling the truth here in front of this body. mr. lazar was asked when we tried to get this before spaces through the arts commission was the policy of mr. lazar to allow spaces to the board of supervisors if the merchant is opposed to him and he said no. his policy was that he only allowed spaces to go to the board if both the merchants in the street agrees to it. we waited 22 months. i think that shows a willful disregard. when we went in front of the board, mr. lazar t last second before they were going to vote on it, they withdrew our commission's

request to have it voted on. we were force today wait a whole year because we were being told this new policy of proposal between the two of them were going to occur. so we had to give him some time and then we kept waiting for mr. lazar to tell us what's going on. wii we waited a whole year and that's when we filed this sunshine request. we didn't file an rdr. my brother filed the request, we gave him 14 days. they knew all the time that this proposal of the art commission and the merchants was dead in the water. at any moment. he could have told us. he willfully with hold that information. my name is paula davis. i

can speak from the website. it it was as the clark brothers described. that's what i saw and i can also speak from personal experience. i filed request and they were never responded to. the response was to send now an employee of the arts commission who claims to have sent me records, could not -- didn't even come in with a file and didn't know anything about the records i requested. the defense was slandering me. that's what they do. now i'm accused of stalking lazar because they don't respond to e-mails. they don't pick up the phones. i went to speak to his

boss, rebecca quill. one day she wasn't there. a couple days later i got on a trolley and now i'm accused not criminally because there is no basis to any of this. it's just what they do and i would endorse the clark brothers because i know them. they are telling the truth. >> other public comment on this item? any questions from the commissioners of mr. lazar or mr. william clark? >> i have some questions. mr. clark, maybe i can ask you first. i am looking at the e-mail that was included in our packet i'm not clear exactly

how this -- it's page 32 of our packet which it looks like it's an e-mail to s o t s. it looks like this was the text here is yours at least in the middle. i'm looking particularly at the portion that says "we sent howard lazar the following e-mail on may 27, 2011. >> that's my complaint. >> right, but you are referring to they mail you sent to mr. lazar and it says, mr. lazar i'm not requesting any documents but i would like an answer to the following questions. do you see that? is that an accurate statement? >> yes. this is what i said.

this is my e-mail that i was asking for public information because i didn't know whether he had any documents at that time. i didn't know whether or not there was anything that had transpired between the hayes valley merchants and the arts commission and i just wanted to know if something had gone on, if something had gone on between the two of them i would have requested further documents and i got no response to this at all. >> i guess i'm having a hard time interpreting this as a request for any documents that exist if you start off by saying you are not requesting any documents? >> i upside that. understand that. i wasn't asking for documents that i knew existed. i was asking for information contained in any documents that might exist at the time.

because i assume they exist because i was told this was going to happen and i waited a whole year before i asked him this information. >> okay. any other questions for mr. clark? >> mr. gib ner, what do we do in a situation, i understand they can request records. can they request a written response to questions? does that qualify? >> the sunshine ordinance doesn't require that type of response. >> it does basically the answer is the sunshine ordinance doesn't require to you create a document in response to a request. it only requires to you produce documents that exist. >> what is the precedent for a situation where maybe there

isn't an explicit but -- if there is a quote unquote sunshine request that is not seeking records, is there an obligation to respond to say, this is not an appropriate sunshine request or follow up with some kind of question? >> under section 67.22 departments must d.c. basically work with someone who is requesting oral information. >> because -- i also underlined

this and see that all of you are careful lawyers underline i'm not requesting any documents parts because this isn't sun shine or public records request. listening to mr. clark now, he could have ended up in the same place, he could have said i like record if any exist. and maybe would have been told there are no responsive records. i don't like that pathway because we don't want to make members of the public have to write in legal ease or draft a public consent in order to get within the public records role. but we also and i don't know whether this is that case yet, we also don't want employees of agencies having to become the public librar