several months. there are problems with the documents as well which is why we sent them to her as well. there are some with the other sites and the division or, the medical files, they are not what they have on the official files and some of those may have redacting to be done and privacy concerns and so we have not turned those over and we will let her know that we will once she signs that waiver. any documents that were filed at the division, there will be documents they division that

she worked. >> okay, i am curious about in your statement, the second to last page of the position statement, you submitted. it looks like she did sign a waiver but she added a couple of sentences to it and so am i understanding that correctly? >> she did. and the sentences that she added basically made it appear (inaudible) i believe that her words that she used was that she did not want anything given to other members of the public. that you wave. >> bup isn't the waiver so that you can release it just to her? >> once you sign the waiver it could be released to any other member of the public that asks for those records, which is why we require that they sign the

waiver. in keeping in line with what the sotf has returned in 07, that is when we started to make that practice. i am sorry mr. gibner were you shaking your head? >> do you have more background on this waiver issue? >> i guess that one fundamental tenant of sunshine and public records is if someone makes a sunshine request and you give the document to that person, you must give it to everyone, so, in a way, this complaint does not really fit in the sunshine box, i think that what the complainant i believe is saying, i wanted records in my personnel file that are personal to me, it is not a sunshine request, it may be

that the city can provide those records under other laws, but it does not fit within the sunshine ordinance box. >> i see. okay. >> so what is the consequence of that? >> are you saying that the whole thing does not belong here? or belong or as to some things that are not in her own personal file. i just don't understand that. >> yeah, i mean, i think that the whole thing does not belong here. that what she is alleging, is not really a sunshine violation. because. >> what about the central control logs? >> well, so, sorry, it may be that there are documents that are not confidential, under any state or local law and do not disclose personal information that are sunshinable, and so in that, those documents, yes. it fits.

>> okay. >> and you are saying that i am not going to give you your documents about you unless you can say that i will make them public and essentially that is totally contrary to her right of privacy and yet she has a right to those documents of the >> that is true. but this is the advice that we were provided by the city attorney's office and they were following what had previously been determined by the sunshine ordinance task force in 2007. i understand that is why they provided that advice to us.

>> perhaps cathy will be able to explain what is official personal records which she was provided as opposed to other documents that are... >> that is what i am asking, describe to me what the documents are that you had provide her that you say are protected by a privacy right, her privacy right but she has to wave before you will give to her. >> am i correct it was the workers compensation files, medical files, and files that were at the divisions. >> >> well, what kind of information is contained in those files. >> in which files, sir?

>> in the worker's compensation files? anything that her medical diagnosis, what type of treatment she may have received, what kind of illness she has. those are actually retained in worker's comp or any request to leave. so they are separated out because we do not want to place those in her official personnel file. because an official personnel file, any requesting agency should say that miss carter decided to take employment at a different agency. anyone could come in and look at her personal file and we try not to retain anything that is personal, like medical diagnosis. >> and these documents you are retraining because of her privacy rights. >> correct. >> correct. >> is there a mechanism by which she could obtain her

personnel file outside of the sunshine ordinance context? >> her official, yeah. per official personnel file she could review at any time. >> we are talking about the other ones. >> but with you are talking about the other medical files. >> if we can retain them, she is more than able to come in, we are glad to sit down and review every document at her request and i believe this is what she was saying is that they have tried to communicate with it. when you say to meet with her. could she have copies of them.

>> go ahead. in addition to advising her verbally when you are reviewing her personnel file did you give her correspondence in writing? >> no. >> okay.

>> any other questions? >> that's just based on the official personnel file. not based on other documents i object that are in question? yeah. >> i'm sorry. i didn't understand. was that in response to something i said? >> no. i wanted to clarify based on her personnel records. the records gave to miss carter. >> the issue we were discussing the medical file, the file she wasn't given. the file that were withheld from her, right? >> okay. pending waiver. right. that there was -- if i understanding you correctly there is an alternative pass for an alternative option for her to get those medical files,

the workers comp files. >> yes. >> thank you. >> your welcome. >> in the order of the sunshine or task force there were questions asked of that you you could not answer. do you recall what those questions were about? >> correct. they were seeking records out of my expertise. in other words that wasn't retained in hr, they were looking for division logs and maintenance sheet and something else. >> so that's not within her personnel records. so that wouldn't be my expertise and i could not answer those questions. >> who made the decision for you to be the representative? >> it was actually based on the request we got. the complaint, i'm sorry, that they were

actually asking him based on the complaint it was based more on her personnel records. that's my expertise so i have no problem in attend ing to answering those questions. but anything else i couldn't answer. >> i'm sorry, am i pronouncing that right? maybe i can ask you this question. it appears that you received a request for the central control logs and other documents concerning maintenance on may 19th before the date of this task force hearing. do you know why miss flis was the only person to attend? >> no. the complaint wasn't for not receiving those files t complaint was for not receiving

her personnel files. the complaint was specific to her personnel files, not to the other items. >> was this the particular write ups that she was seeking in this document, documents she thought existed that were written by supervisors? >> it's -- were some of those provided? >> she said missing documents from write ups from reports. that's what they said in the order of determination and may or may not have been what you were told would come up at the meeting. >> right. i think those documents were located at the division and not part of her official personnel file in human resources. >> the thing that was confuse to go me was the order of

determination was focused on letters and correspondence between management and e-mails, notes, my records from february 99' to august 10. i understand why that seems like personnel. the order itself talks about documents that appear to have been requested later. >> that sounds correct. >> okay. >> any other questions for miss -- alice or slooi a, any comments on this item? >> i'm not sure how procedurally this should work

but she should be provided this in writing for documents she's trying to obtain which are personal to herself. >> is there a reason this can't be provided in writing? >> there is no reason. but when we are sitting down in the meeting with the individual and they sat down and answered the question i didn't see there was a reason to follow up conversation and she said she was content with what she'd seen and i didn't find any reason to follow up with a letter. i didn't. >> is there any reason why we can't simply order them to produce those files to her without requiring the waiver unless you've got some other basis for which you are not

willing to produce the files. >> at least my concern with doing that is we can do that under the sunshine ordinance but because if you do that under the sunshine ordinance there is a waiver requirement. it sounds like it's better for her to get them through this non-task sunshine mean. >> i will accept that. >> it sounds like there was a concession that the response was not timely so i think we should issue a letter explaining that you all should try to get better in the future and try to make these responses timely and cross your t's and i don't think there is a violation of 67.21 c. i think

they met their burden given sli ya was -- and my reading of the complaint at issue is that it related primarily to the employment file and miss -- alice was the right person for that. >> i'm comfortable with that. >> is there a motion to make that determination? >> so moved. >> we had public comment. >> all in favor? >> second. >> you want to say something? >> the 2 request from miss carter in the packet neither of them refer to the sunshine ordinance. i don't know this person who was apparently the

driver, i would assume she is not well versed in the sunshine and i would assume she was just trying to get her information. >> what's the point? >> i think that she was trying to implicate her rights as an employee, not her rights as a member of the public and i think there may be laws that are referenced here with regard to the labor code, the mlu whatever else employees get access to their file that are more at issue than the sunshine ordinance. >> which is outside of our jurisdiction. >> i understand. that's why i think it's difficult to process this and i'm more inclined to mr. gib ner's point of view on this. >> is your point at it's simplest because of the sunshine task force because of the violation we don't have to or is it something else?

>> if you are not comfortable with that >> here is my concern. this is being sent to us under chapter two which means we are accept that go accepting that there was a finding and whether or not the respondent can meet their burden. i don't know how far we are supposed to dig to the underlying conduct. if there was a violation of 26.21 b and the task force found that there was, whether or not the compliant was perfectly characterized as the sunshine violation, clearly she went to the task and was asking for remedy. >> true. in that sense even though her written documents didn't -- call it in the jurisdiction and rights of

sunshine by going to the task force, she did. >> not on the merit but the benefit of the listening audience i suggest that you close public comment again because you want more time and i know there is no members of the public. just to clear it up. >> it was open and closed. you reopened it to make additional comments. >> if other people -- >> i will be sure not to do that again. sorry. other public comment? okay. the motion has been made and seconded all in favor? >> i. >> motion passes. >> thank you for staying. i know it's a long night. next item on the agenda complaint 07

-- 120621. frankly respondent. the respondent here? mr. lee? thank you for your patience. is the complaint in here? mr. lee, five minutes. you have five minutes. >> thank you commissioners. frank lee for the department of public works. i sent a letter to the commission last week. i will just read what the letter contains. our department responded fully to mr. lars from june 2012. in addition to providing him with hundreds of documents we exceed td requirement with the sunshine ordinance task force by

inviting him to meet with us to 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 ta