mr. maionchi was attempting to shed light on was already being addressed there was a transfer of a birth from an existing owner who was delinquent on his rent, to a new ownership group. and essentially the existing owner tried to (inaudible) the new owners and sell him something and actually transfer the boat or the birth. through the work of our harbor master working with his ex-wife and the coast guard was able to remedy that situation and the rightful owners got the boat and the lease and there was no money lost in the transaction. >> and so then, but for the fact that this was happening in as you characterized it as a separate proceedings, and would, or do you agree that the information of address and phone number were relevant? >> in this case, yes, if we had not already been working with, and we were working directly with the new ownership group, and who also happened to be number one on the wait list for a birth, so had this person actually left, which is what we were trying to do, or you know, kick him out for being in arears, and for however many months, this or the people that

mr. maionchi and the task force has asked for the same information on multiple occasions, however, our response was that the facts of the situation had not changed, and so, just because someone asked three times does not mean that we are going to change our mind. >> did the city attorney provide a justification for why the information did not need to be disclosed? >> i believe that it was outlined in the record but from what we articulated. >> i understand the legal bases for wanting to withhold the information, what i am fully understanding from you is the factual basis is what you are well suited to provide. i mean, what factors we want into the determination that this is not a unique situation in which the information should be disclosed. >> i think that primarily and i am going to try to navigate this without revealing too much personal information about the case in hand but primarily that the issue that mr. maionchi was attempting to shed light on was already being addressed there was a transfer of a birth from an existing owner who was delinquent on his rent, to a new ownership group. and

mr. maionchi never respond and never requested a continuance. >> thank you. >> and a presume that the city attorney finds the notice for both parties was sufficient? >> yes, based on what mr. chap field just said. >> any other discussion or is there a motion? >> what, this is, and i think that this is just a question on the standardization of the procedure. and for the sunshine ordinance task force. and are we saying that a blanket statement that if there is an employee, a city employee whomever that city department head is, they should always be named? or, are we making that for this particular decision, i feel like, if it turns out that we don't have right respondent named that we should really go back all the way to it and solve that and i have a feeling that we have, a more clear understanding and a decision that we will make on the violation itself and i feel that we are less clear on this, and i feel to leave it alone to just sort of think that it is fine and he is the head of the department and i as a person who has the organization and i get that the buck stops here. but at the sam

mr. maionchi was trying to address in the complaints were being dealt with through a separate channel throughthe rules. >> the separate channel, that it is being dealt with, we have nothing about that before us, in the record. that we have, that we are making a decision upon. >> i understand that. >> and so i have no idea what you are talking about, two issues, one is to whether or not the proper party, has been or was added without due process, and that is one aspect of it. and the second question, which is all that i am interested in really and that is why i am asking about it is whether or not you had the legal right to refuse to disclose this. and that is what my questions have been pursuing, and i think that you have answered them and so i want to thank you for that. >> and i think that there are at least five letters in your record, that speak and assert what legal rights we were exercising. >> i am sure that we can say it much more aply and concisely than i have. >> and i will be speaking to each one of those, thanks a lot. >> what is published by the recreation department that tells a

mr. maionchi. >> it sounds like you just conceded but for the separate proceeding it would have been relevant and i am trying to understand why. >> it could have been and this is a very, and this is a harbor that has 365 boats and most people know each other, and you could leave a note on a boat and there are a variety of ways to reach people in the era of google and facebook and all of those things, if we had not already been engaged in a very diligent effort to right this wrong, we may have had a different conversation, i don't know the out come of that conversation, but our assertion of the privacy rights was bolstered by the fact that we felt that the alleged injustice was sort of in hand, if that makes sense. >> and so... >> any other questions for miss ballard? or mr. warren? >> if i may, mr. chair, there have been a number of references to the city attorneys good government guide and the references have been on page 89 of our appendix. and the part relating to privacy and it gives, and it gives some examples but the document itself is an advisory document and it has no absolutely no fo

mr. maionchi and i attended the hearing was on that list and it was his belief that somebody, a person that they referenced, had done an illegal deal, to get a space when they were on the list lower than him. and he wanted to find out whether the department had allowed that and whether they were making any effort to look into it, and he have found out that they were not, and they have not until this case came up. >> other public comment? >> are there any questions for either mr. hartz or 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 howev