mr. pilpal. we have found that there was no, and we have not found a violation, we are referring it back without yet, finding a violation, that to, and i think that the task force then, when it gets it back and needs to go through its process and send it back to us as it normally would through the process. or not, if we choose not to. >> or not. >> that is an option. >> yeah, i mean, yes. i think that nobody is soliciting your input at this point and i am not trying to be rude and we just need to... >> i just want to have to go through this again. >> thank you. >> all in favor? >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> opposed? >> no. >> no. >> motion passes. 3-2. >> the next item on the agenda is a closed session.closed session held pursuant to brown act section 54956.9(a),(e)(2) and sunshine ordinance section 67.10(d) to discuss anticipated litigation as defendant in light of mccutcheon v. federal election commission, no. 12-536 >> public comment? >> we need a motion for go into closed session? >> the public

mr. pilpal. >> and i agree with mr. white on that last point. >> you said that it was your view of the task force that there was a problem with naming mr. ginsbuger and could you elaborate on your rationale for that? >> first the initial underlying complaint was against miss gong and she is the person that appeared at the various hearings and after the order was made and came back to the full task force, and we heard it at one meeting and continued it, and i suggested in there was in order, in there seemed to be an interest in naming mr. ginsburg, since he was not the named respondent in the underlying complaint and it was continued in part to give him notice, via the e-mail that was referenced of the subject hearing so that his due process was addressed. and i am not sure if that was sufficient, and i think that we are now, at that question, precisely, and i think that we need to have some clarity between this commission and the staff and the task force, about what steps needs to happen, in order for the things to be p

mr. pilpal additional public comment, may i have the same? >> no. >> does anyone have questions for mr. hartz. >> he was not asked a question and he just simply came up and started talking, if you are going to give him the additional time and then i am entitled to the additional time and i think that you know that. >> let me finish this line of questioning and then i will give you the additional time and i wanted also, and unless the others have the questions on this particular topic, and the standing issue, and can i hear from the staff and the city attorney on that point? >> i think that there are two questions and i think that one question is was it a due process violation for the sunshine ordinance task force to refer a willful violation by mr. ginsburg to the ethics commission even though he was not named as a respondent below? and i think that is one question. and i think that the second question, is assuming that there was no due process violation, and whether or whether there is or whether there is enough to find a willful violation based on the state of the evidence as to wheth

mr. pilpal? >> i have some for mr. pilpal. >> you have mentioned briefly that there is no, and that it would have been a violation to do a balancing test under 6255 a? >> yes. >> why do you say that? >> 67.24 g specifically says and you have this in your memo and in the law that neither the city or any office or employee may assert 6255 or similar provisions for withholding any documents or information requested under this ordinance, and it has a similar provision. in 6424 i, i and could expand on that a little bit. page eight of the memo, for example, in the other places. >> okay. >> and i do believe however, that where there is a privacy interest, either asserted or recognized, that there is a need for a privacy balancing, which i would not consider a 6255. balancing, but i think has in some ways, similar interests. or similar factors to be considered. and i'm fairly familiar with the case law, and in my opinion, the case law is not great, or particularly on point about this. and i think that the... >> let's back up a