>> i'm looking at 13 of the entertensi submitl. under the recitals of the original m-o-u, recital f, san francisco first delegated its authority to issue entertainment related permits in july 2004, an m-o-u which expired on june 30, 2005. the port and entertainment commission a graced to hold [speaker not understood]. why would that hold over not be applicable in terms of the action that was taken? >> because we believe it's the port that was saying, we need to have this new m-o-u. what the entertainment commission was agreeing to accept is maybe what the entertainment commission was willing to accept, but the question is at what point was the port's delegation actually effective? was it the diderction that is the dispute. one for this board to decide. we believe that it would be effective at the point where all conditions were met which is adoption of the m-o-u and their position of the other side is that essentially the legislative act, whether there was ever any m-o-u to this day, what they're saying is to this day there could b