mr. gibner suggested. is there a further discussion? or should we make a motion? >> is there a motion to find that miss gong violated 67.25, with respect to failure to respond in a timely fashion to the request, but no violation by any of the three respondents as to the other violations that were found by the task force? >> did i say that much correctly in light of the standard? >> yes. >> so moved >> is there a second? >> a second. >> >> all in favor? >> aye. >> aye. >> opposed? >> hearing none, that motion passes. >> i think that we then need to determine what order is issued for the finding of the violation. here, i think that it is appropriate first of all, i think that commissioners renne is right, in a situation where they are late by two days, because they are trying to get additional information to provide to the complainant, i don't think that is a particularly egregious problem that requires a lot of remedying activity on our part. i would suggest a letter to the parks and rec saying that they should comply with the 67.25 in the future and that document

mr. gibner that there is no city-wide policy on directing agencies to the department of technology for back up information in response to sunshine requests, i feel like there can't really be a finding of willful violation because there was and there is no protocol on back up tapes and that is the piece that i am struggling with here. maybe i... there is no city-wide policy on back up tapes. so, our advice to the departments across city has been when you receive a sunshine request or a public records request you are not required to go and search back up tape which as commissioners studley said is not even in your department. i guess that i just want to clarify that. >> okay. >> thank you. >> any other comments on the commissioners? >> anybody like to make a motion regarding this agenda item? >> i would move that we find that mr. ginsberg did not willfully violate the sections of the sunshine ordinance sections that were referred to, 67.25, 67.26, 67.27, or 67.21. >> yes. >> (inaudible). >> all right i am looking at the memo from the staff and it says that the task board made a motion finding

mr. gibner are you talking about section 67.297? one of the speakers during public comment had pointed to that, about the department heads shall maintain and

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,

mr. city attorney? >> john, gibner city attorney, and just a few provisions in the ordinance, and the ordinance approving the contract, waived the concern requirements. and two of those requirements that are proposed to be waived can't be waived because they are adopted by the voter initiatives and one is government comment code, which you are both familiar with, that prohibts contractors from getting campaign contribution to elected officials, and the other is administrative code section or chapter 12 g, that prohibts city money from being used for political activities and so our recommendation is that you strike those sections of the ordinance on page 4, lines 8 through 11. and the contract itself, provides that the parties will be subject to all applicable laws and so the contract acknowledges that pg&e will continue to be subject to these provisions. >> okay. obviously we would completely agree to it accept that the amendments and leave it at that. >> supervisor avalos? >> just a couple of questions, is there any s