can be i don't know but i will look if you file a sunshine request or -- gee i don't think so. >> what's the provision for 67.22 that c? >> i think the entire section deals with response must respond for oral information. a. the b the role of that person is to provide information in a helpful and timely way and c, that person does not have to sit down and have a lengthy discussion. i think it does not require to

respond if it takes more than 15 minutes to provide the information. >> okay. but this is for oral information. not a record. >> that's right. as i mentioned earlier sunshine ordinance does not require the city to create any records. >> okay. i understand. >> if i let him speak am i opening up public comment. >> you can reopen public comment. i maybe able to help you on this. >> no. i understand. it was meant to be a joke. it's not nearly as funny a the 1:0:30. >> just to refer you to section 20 b public information is defined there as the content of

public records in public records act whether provided in documentary form or oral communication and doesn't include software. i would perhaps interpret even if mr. clark wasn't specifically requesting any documents to the extent that there was information contained in a document that's responsive to his inquiry and to the extent this was a single question and not interrogatories that if the department had information in a specific document, if they had records to produce and responsive to that question, they could have done so. i don't have a strong opinion on the this case that's why i didn't speak but i think there are other ways to interpret the questionch >> i don't think there is any doubt whether they provided the

records. the question is to a non-document question. does all of this kick into gear if there aren't document and documents aren't what are sought whether it's just an answer where the person would say we've never done that or we have no such documents or we didn't take it up. >> you opened public comment again. >> she's already spoken. >> i believe what you adidas as opposed to the last item. you allowed him to speak. as for the last item you gave each person another 3 minutes. i

would say public comment is closed. >> it can be at your discretion. >> i will give you an extra minute. you've already spoken but i will give you an extra minute. >> you can see in mr. lazar's presentation is that not only he's trying to justify to you his actions by giving i a packet and explaining to you the amount of hours he's spent, the fact that he's responded to every sunshine request, it's quite the opposite. and in fact he will come out to the stroo it street in the guise of doing an inspection to sunshine request which is really bad tor a street artist and listen to that >> since you opened a public

comment, i'm requesting another minute. we asked for public information. if the employee or the director of the records knows the answer to that public information or can get it within 15 minutes they are required to give that information. mr. lazar has known that answer to that question because he claims he worked with the hayes valley merchants to create this new program between the merchants and the hayes valley. he deliberately refused to give us that information within the time period required by the sunshine ordinance. it's a willful refusal. he knew it at the time and he decided not to tell us that information. it's a public information request. i don't need to ask for documents. >> yeah. mr. lazar, i have a

question for you as well. >> to clarify the public comment is now close. >> public comment is closed an will not be reopened on this matter. i have a question for you. >> why did you run out on the meeting? >> this you for asking. they are correct. i was with the representative and i suffered an asthmatic attack and i had to leave. he left with me. i wrote the next day to the task force apologizing for that and they have my letter on file. >> okay. >> was the item continued to the next month? >> i believe that's what happened. >> did you attend the meeting

the following month? >> no. other id the representative attend with the script that i had written and looked at by the city attorney. the same script that would have been read that first month. >> why did you not attend the meeting? >> because i didn't trust my nerves at that meeting and i didn't want to suffer another attack. >> no questions for mr. lazar? >> no. >> comments? from the commissioners? any points on this item? >> when i first read the complaint i thought there might be an issue because there

wasn't request for documents. but i underlined what he pointed out which was the definition section does include oral communication as public information. with that guidance i think there is an obligation it looks like under the ordinance to respond for request for public information even if it's for oral information and not necessarily just the document request. >> trying to understand how this works in practice. if you send or make a request for information not documents then, the only obligation is to get provided an oral response. if you don't to have create a document, i e type out the answers to the question so can you call them and say this was what we are doing or answer the

questions orally. >> that's right. or make someone available to answer the questions simply. i would note that while we are on the this issue, mr. lazar is not was not charged by the sunshine force with a violation of that section of the ordinance. he was charged with the failure to respond to a public records question, i believe. no. sorry. i meant that 10:30. >> well, that looks like he's met his burden on that.

>> what he, mr. lazar has met his burden? >> i'm sorry. he has not met his burden on 67.22 b. " " >> both. 21 and 22. >> 67.21 b appears to refer to a custodian of the public record. and i think that's a document, isn't it? it doesn't sound like there were any documents. so if he's not requesting documents, but

he said he's requesting information could mr. lazar be liable for failure to provide a record? >> i don't believe so. 67.21 b specifically address the situations where the custodian has received a request for inspection or copy of a public record. >> right. >> yeah. 67.21 b relies on e. >> i don't think 67.21 e was

warranted either. >> which one, it doesn't track 22 b? >> which one? >> 21 e you are saying depends only on -- >> yes. it says the custodian refuse to comply with b above. >> yeah, 67.22 seems completely different. >> for the record i would say although -- i would say it wasn't willful because he relied on the city attorney but

that it pertains to document can ustodian, thissen then that maybe moved. >> if what only applied to document custodian. >> if 67.21 e that only applies to document custodian, that person may not have been knowledgeable. that's not applicable. if the volition on the merits is 22 b. >> i think that's right. >> mr. lazar, i apologize that

you have now come up from the back row twice. i have one other question for you. >> if the answer to the question was there hasn't been any communication, why not just tell that to mr. clark? why go through all of this? >> i'm honestly can't answer that. i would tell him, i don't know. i don't remember that. i believe i did say what was happening in terms of that lack of compromise on the part of the -- at the committee

meeting. but i just right now i have no recollection. i'm not going to deny it. i said do what you have to do. okay? thanks. >> are there any views with respect to the 67.34 willful violation finding? >> i have to say i was a little troubled by -- if that's the interpretation that you can find a willful violation based on a pattern of practice but

that it's not inadequate response but that there is the alleged practice is not before us. i find that troubling that it was just out there that there is this practice and no evidence of it at least not that was compiled in front of us with any basis. there might be a basis but i don't think the ground work wasn't laid for it. that's what i'm saying. >> i agree with that. >> any other? >> then would you find a violation but not a willful violation of 22 e? >> i think in the materials that were given to us, oh, you are back to 22 b?

>> i think commissioner was talking about 67.34. >> right. further found. >> right, the chair was asking about 67.34, based on the practice allegation i wouldn't be able to find that based on the materials provided to us. to be honest mr. lazar's few file that he's compiled i don't know what to make of the entire chart of the history of hearings before the task force. i don't know which way that cuts because i don't have any background on any of those other alleged pattern and practice. so that was what i was responding to commissioners.

>> any other comments or viewpoints? >> i don't believe so that mr. lazar has presented sufficient evidence to overcome the presumption that the task force finding is to 67.22 b or that there wasn't a violation of that section. i don't think we need to get to whether it was willful or not. he just simply has not overcome the presumption of the violation of that section. >> is that right? >> that's right. >> i would agree with that. >> okay. >> is there a motion to find that mr. lazar has overcome his

burden with respect to 67.21 b and 67.21 e but not with respect to 67.22 b. >> [inaudible] >> my understanding is that we don't have to address that. >> is that right. >> based on the statement there is simply no evidence in the violation. >> i think that's a different question. i think what commissioner was saying was -- maybe i misinterpreted it. i thought he said we don't have to reach 67.34. is that right? >> that's my understanding of section 2 is that we can find a violation but you don't need to find that it was willful but it maybe better to do it in the

context of that e -- that there is insufficient showing by mr. lazar that he did not violate 67.22 b. but that we did not find that he violated 67.21 b or 67.21 e or that there was a pattern of practice of inadequate responses or willfulness. >> i'm completely with commissioner raenie with 67.22 b. and i think i come to the same result on the other three but i'm wondering what is the best way for to us reflect it. on the first two, i think we

are not saying that he prevailed in overcoming the presumption. i think we are saying they don't seem to apply at all i think the difference might matter if other people are thinking, what does it take to overcome and burden or sunshine to know what applies or not. just a thought. i'm just offering that up. we can do those two and as for 67.34 i don't think he overcame a presumption by demonstration there was no pattern in practice that sunshine did not in fact carry it's burden to build that presumption, not that he overcame it. >> i think that was what commissioner was saying. >> yeah. they didn't -- the construct that he could kick over. >> right. i think that was the

guidance to that. >> i think that's going to cause more confusion because it's the respondent's burden, we are giving some weight to the task force. i think he has overcome that presumption to 67.21 b and e because they have showed. >> even though he didn't make exertions they are made that -- we look at the evidence in the record. he presented his arguments and i think we can find that the burden has been overcome with respect to 67.34. it is his burden. if we are saying that the task force if it were the task force burden

then they wouldn't meet it then that's a different thing. what i think we should say that he's established that there was no -- that the finding of a pattern in practice wasn't reasonable in light of the evidence. >> maybe we are thinking it has to come out of his mouth or his pleadings, if we take what he said plus if we add what our -- added it to the rebuttal to that presumption then i agree that we have defeated the presumption. that may not be the right standard. that maybe irrelevant. >> i would recommend that the motion be that the commission finds a violation of 67.22 b and no violation of any of the other sections charged or

alleged violations based on the standards and regulation. the motion does not need to parse out the reasons for each if you meet that finding, you are by definition find that go he has met his presumption on the three where you find no violation that he has not found a presumption on 22 b. >> is there a motion to find that there has been a violation of 67.22 b and that under the regulations we should make a finding of no violation with respect to 67.21 b and 67.21 e and 67.34? >> so moved. >> second? >> second. all in favor?

>> aye. >> opposed? none. motion passes. >> for the record i suggested that we not have all of these in the same day. i changed my mind and now we are all suffering. >> we are done. >> i just wanted to ask in support of this decision that you just made, are you issuing orders under subsection e or are you as required staff to prepare an order and you are authorized to sign that? >> yeah. you are right. >> i'm not sure if that all happened? >> we did in this. i think this order should be similar to the others in that we notified them

of the violation and cease and desist of such contract in the future. any objection? >> no objection. >> the next item on the agenda are the minutes. >> mr. papal, that was part of the motion. you want a motion and a second on the order asking the staff to prepare a letter. you adopted a motion finding a violation, you want a motion directing the staff to issue a letter. >> okay. is there a motion to prepare a letter in accordance with what we've just described? >> so moved. >> second. >> public comment? >> david papal just that this

letter should be aspect as possible because this is the first time we are going through this process and we want to be really sure that it's covering what the action that you took, some of the thinking, however you want this to appear in the future because you are setting a template. >> we found other violations earlier this evening. >> yeah. and you will use your good judgment. thank you. >> can we vote? all in favor? >> aye. >> opposed? none. it passes. okay. the minutes. public comment? >> david papal, a couple items i believe on page 1 what was his name? josh was also

present from the city attorneys office and that should be reflected on page 2 and 3 with respect to commissioner rene's recusal. i they he either did vote or should be reflected on the second motion. i think one does vote on one, does one vote on one's own recusal? >> no, he did not. not on another but do you recuse? >> i think if you recuse then you vote. i don't know how that is to be reflected button page 3 it should say he recused and not retaining. >> on page 4 as well and finally with respect to top of page 5, the closed session doesn't properly disclose

consistent with 67.16 who was present in the closed session. >> 67.15 of the ordinance has specific language about closed the minutes of a closed session which asks to include who was present and it's not clear from the context who was. so those are my suggested amendments to the minutes. thanks. >> did you get those? they all seem? any other amendments to the minutes? is there a motion to approve the minutes? >> so moved. >> all in favor? >> aye. >> none opposed. it passes.