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 library to answer every question. there is a reason you don't have to create documents. please do a research report for me. if there are existing documents are entitled to them on a certain basis. so while this could be misleading, i'm glad to hear mr. gib ner say there is a separate expectation that if somebody asks a question that you are supposed to try to answer it. the answer 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