an individual there are clearly a lot of issues at stake i'll start by saying the agenda item description and the two attachment appear to be minimal for this grant and what commissioner president keane said a good summary for the public there are clearly parties with interests and public interest i'm not converging in the facts of this matter not a lawyer not an expert on co-laterales disposal or whatever fraunlt concealment some of the comments about approving the tracking and investigations and how they implicate investigations within our purview are interesting and

important if the commission or the staff believes there was a violation of a c and g code section the staff should prepare prop k what was suggested earlier we're having short end abbreviated meeting it would certainly be a new process or new thing for this commission to step in and say this forfeiture should not go forward i'm not sure there is anything in the commission rules and guidelines that provide for that if the letter continues as was sent and it ends up in court

than perhaps the other side will raise the issue that is proper and that will be determined in court i think there are role those complicated issues the united has discussion and possible action doesn't say anything about waving the forfeiture if there was actually a waiver request not in our packet should not be specifically before you tonight, i'm kind of wondering what direction you're going to go with that perhaps that was helpful perhaps not. >> thank you. >> any other public comment? >> good evening, commissioners joe kelly junior is my name i didn't come this evening

accepting to speak on the item but sitting here i felt moved to get up and say something because it just as a you know as a concerned citizen i guess the commission has a lot of lawyers and there's a lot of legal issues but this particular item i mean and how you've obviously put time in discussion into the issue it just it seems to me that you would be really not violating but moving against everything this commissions goals and codes stand for to she felt this item

i think that would serve the public well, to continue the process and if you mention it is found in the court that no it shouldn't precede so be it but it was - this specification of this issue warrant it to be continued and it will - imi'm surprised this supervisors is not here to represent himself anyway, that's my thought i will actually say, i think that would be a wonderful precedent if nothing else to you know keep officials you know on guard about doing things if it is done thank you. >> thank you. any others? having harder the public comment i still any commissioner want to

make a motion how to dispose of issue? >> i don't have a motion but a suggestion so if someone else has a motion go ahead. >> commissioner president keane. >> i'm contestant of the status quo and the status quo is a forfeiture continues unless we in someway is interrupted. >> when you say the status quo the status quo is a recommendation of the staff that it be waived and if we don't take some action to overrule that then the staff will make its decision and the letter will

get out. >> i'm still the chair is open and i took as the staff making the decision of waiver is no longer on the table from what the chair distributed to us in terms of why this is on the agenda tonight and your own discussions with the executive director that the staff and executive director should not go ahead with the waiver so i wascontent with what the chair. >> i said there was two decisions whether or not. >> who. >> who staff should be able to wave this. >> who the commission wants the letter drafted by the staff to go out or not. >> which letter. >> the letter attached to the staff recommendations on the

subject item agenda item tonight. >> regarding about statute of limitations? >> the one i have says it's a letter mr. sincroy we're not 0 going forward because of the statute of limitations if we don't take action that letter go out that's exactly what - >> okay. >> one of the possibility. >> if that's the state of what where we are in terms of whether or not we are in favor of mr. sincroy sending a letter out to supervisor farrell saying that the matter has been waved because of the statute of limitations i move that mr. sincroy not send that letter out

out. >> is there a second? >> i'll second, that. >> the motion has been made and sect. >> may i comment. >> certainly. >> if the commission were to make the make a decision to approve or deny waiver i think over a certain dollar amount we should we should have that we should actually put a policy in place before we start making decisions without the policy mr. in place abused what it seems like wiener we're about to do is change the policy decision on the fly without noticing the public and fully understanding

the scope what is the threshold we'll be approving waivers we should know that i'll say that based on the letter that was drafted to me that i would not approve that because it is contains no rational for why the waiver is being contraband if we're to grant a waiver we fled the rational in the letter that is granting the waiver and certainly i wouldn't want it to be happening my personal view if the statute of limitations applies we should grant the waiver i understand people want officials held account i do don't i understand statute of limitations are unpopularity with the public but i don't think our job to do whatever you know seems the wave seem to be encompasses if the

statute of limitations apply it is noting not fair to make a public official go so there a lengthy court procedures e procedure if we don't think that - if we believe it applies if we don't believe it applies point of privilege based on the record and this letter about to be sent to me it's far too i think complete to grant approval but i too think we should know the stated for what we're going to approve and not what types of waivers we're going to look at it and defer to the staff on. >> mr. chair i'm in philosophical agreement with commissioner vice president andrews i couldn't support the

letter but the letter specifically there's not enough here ♪ letter it didn't fully describe why we'll move forward with granting a letter of this forfeiture so i wrote on this for michelle i feel like the commission is anything's we either are mercy housing a pissy think this is around the statute of limitations we're either missing a pious or feel we are going missing a pissy suspect if we have something important define active on who the statute of limitations did or denied apply we'll able to have a different attach discussion that loads to at minimum movrd i don't know the outcome but moving forward on this and i think it feels in the absence ever that information i

don't know if we can get that information or continue this and have potential some closed session either to tonight i can't imagine that if the public would like it or the commission for that matter or continue to next month i want to make sure we've asked ourselves do we feel we're missing anything the question to the question then we'll move forward and get the leaguer pious get more information i don't feel the commission as a whole is miss characteristicsing the feelings >> well, we have suffixes from

that both sides but we need to if we are going to approve a waiver we need to have the rational it the staff is exploring it make that decision. >> it's a lights form it is very light. >> commissioner hur inherent the commission has the power to overrule the executive director regardless of what the decision. >> i agree i agree what we have before us tonight it seems to me is a question of do we want this to put this matter behind us or the deny the waiver and the letter forfeiture goes it's ordinary course and

close the foil as far as the commissioner is concerned. >> i'm not that's fair because if there's a significant statute of limitations concerning clearly there is the city attorney is not pursuing and we've looked at some of the laws theirs concerns if that's the case to close the book not just either i think we owe it to the public to make a decision if the letter is before us then we have the rational we'll decide we can disagree with the rational didn't that argument apply for both sides i don't think anyone is asking u.s.s. to take - i think they want a decision and the waiver request is a vehicle for doing that the granting of waiver i want to

know staffs rational for recommending that waiver. >> well so far as the asphalting no one is going to produce that is the way it is decided that's not the way the system works. >> f it requires a judge to say it and i think what we were hearing is that let it go let the forfeiture go and if it gets challenged and the statute of limitations get litigated some court will decide that we're not having enough wisdom to decide the statute of limitations. >> commissioner renne i'll draw

between you and me we make legal detectors easement we're going capable of determining the rational for a waiver is appropriate or not we may disagree if we disagree and the waiver is not approved it go forward but we're signifying let's put our heads in the sand and not have the rational before us and in the adjudicate it and punch to the strublt that will have the same resources for one case at collective of us do. >> but the there's nothing more that needs to be articulated on the statute of limitations we've got presentations by both sides and i don't know you know i've made you don't see i don't say i

like the letter or agree with the letter but what more can the staff say we are going to deal with the statute of limitations what are they going to present us us. >> hopefully by why it applies. >> won't we want to explain the reasons i just can't imagine if you're the public and you receive a letter that says it's waved the statute of limitations period that you're going to find that satisfactorily but if you have a letter it explains the rational at least you'd understand why the statute of limitations applies. >> i'm suggesting to you if what we want to do is instruct the staff to draft a letter to our satisfaction just i jifg the

waiver is it because we're reached a decision. >> not at all my guess there maybe disagreement but we'll hash it out. >> with all due respect mr. chair commissioner hur and i think we've had it out certainly with the statute of limitations in terms of further beating of that horse i can't imagine what can be addressed to the discussion tonight tonight. >> motion on the table. >> call the question. >> you want to - you have the motion. >> my motion we not authorize mr. sincroy to send out the leaders or letter saying the marietta matter is waved because

of the statute of limitations we not approve the letter. >> all in favor, say i. >> i opposed i opts because my amendment was not included. >> so the motion is carried that the letter not go out the other issue i think that is - >> can you stayed the vote we couldn't tell. >> 4 to one. >> okay. thank you. >> the other question is whether or not we want to continue to take any action in the farrell matter there's sort of. >> double negative hanging somewhere in terms of don't say

require a motion we're not going to take further action i think the opposite would be true if we're going to take further action someone will move we take further action and this is not going to be me. >> as the records stands it that we've rejected the waiver letter. >> right. >> but i don't know, there is inherent is the desertion that the forfeiture goes forward. >> i disagree the forfeiture is in motion as has been in motion ever since that letter was sent out and every sense we've vociferated and relieved after the closed session that we were requesting that supervisor farrell's people respond to the

forfeiture letter. >> mr. chair given those mechanics to say that the forfeiture is not in motion didn't make sense if someone wants the forfeitures stopped let's have someone make an honest motion stop the forfeiture it is going right now. >> i will make a motion that we suspend the forfeiture in the event that the let me start over if the staff is inclined to recommend a waiver and believes that a waiver should be issued then i think we should suspected the forfeiture for a short period of time for the staff to justify the rational if the staff is to the interested with

the forfeiture then it should go forward with the brief time to evaluate i think if we consider a waiver request we should as the staff should give their position and the forfeiture should be briefly suspended for them to provide such investigation. >> that was a very lengthy. >> (laughter). >> can you still that motion into a couple of sentences or so. >> let's see if you can find a second. >> how about this how about are

we willing to direct staff to decide within one month? whether they have any interest in further jifg their waiver recommendation? if they come back in a month and say no then we'll precede if they come back in a month and say here's a further rational we'll consider it at that time i worried about we said no to the letter for different reasons not all of which are on the mayor point of order mr. chair we have just voted against a waiver recommendation by the staff as i understand we've said

no in effect what commissioner hur is floating out there is a motion to reconsider and well, did they have other reasons that change your minds that's another motion to reconsider commissioner hur voted against the motion in order for a motion to reconsider to be appropriate it will have to be made by one who voted for the motions i'm not making it >> i don't think that is accurate. >> robert rolls ever order we're asked to reconsider who we want to go with the staffs - the staff wanting to wave the matter staff asked us to wave it we

said no and one of the members said come up with another reign this is a motion to reconsider. >> that's a complete miss characterization. >> my understanding of the sort of status thing based on the first motion there's no recommendations for the staff to send out the attached letter i think this is a separate question what i heard commissioner hur to do to superintendant the exist forfeiture proceeding are the forfeiture matter and provide staff an opportunity if it buildings a basis for articulating why the statute didn't apply i don't see the he could. >> second a - >> that's a miss characterization of the first motion in regards to wasn't

we're doing we're telling our first motion was the motion that i made and that was voted that on was that we disapprove the staffs sending out the letter not that we don't recommend the staff to send out the letter that's the way the city attorney character charactered it we disapproved it no waiver the wildfire request that was asked for new someone is throwing around maybe someone can come up with something better this is totally

imprisonmentin inappropriate the motion lost 4 to one needless one of the people that voted for the motion wants to reconsider i'm one of the people that voted for it i co-pay don't want to reconsider. >> what's the next step on the forfeiture letter that is gone out and based on the fact we voted we don't want the waiver to be granted. >> okay. my understanding was the vote was not to send that particular letter. >> right. >> the fact that the commission voted not to send that particular letter reexcludes the commission from moving to direct staff to more fulfill articulate the rational why the four years ever statute of limitations has not lapsed so i think it is an option to do with commissioner

hur as proposed doing it is also on option to not do anything at this point and the status will be that the staff has not been authorized to send out that particular reserve letter but the beautiful remains in staffs court what to do next it is up to the commission. >> i'm going to disagree i'm sorry based on the vote that took place the for structure is for b dr that's what happens. >> i understand what commissioner hur's motions would be to not send it to b dr for thirty days and the staff if it chooses to submit for consideration of a digestion

jifrgs to put it on agenda for next month. >> we're not indirectly them to do it they think it is appropriate they can but if they had it they need - and it motion is not foreclosed. >> commissioner hur is not foreclosed by the vote on the first. >> do i have a second to commissioner hur's proposed motion. >> i second that. >> public comment? no public comment call the >> all in favor, say i. of commissioner hur's motion>> i. opposed. >> no vote is 4 to one in favor so if the staff chooses this will be on the calendar for a

vote i believe that item 4 there's no need for. >> item 5 discussion and possibly action on a matter of the nixon o moigsz for the sunshine ordinance hearing regarding the alleged violation of the sunshine violation and responsibility rebecca and supervisor deputy director is the complanlt