mr. rahaim and now they were told well, no you should have been did it with mr. rahaim. this is like lucy and the football. >> [inaudible] >> sorry about that. >> let me -- but i want to pursue something further. i think we have enough evidence here and mr. rahaim violated the ordinance and it can be based on a willful or non willful violation. there is evidence to sustain a non willful violation given that we have in the record tonight that mr. rahaim is the head of this organization. he has one midlevel supervisor between him and these underlings who do these tasks. they report to the one midlevel person. we have been hold that mr. rahaim will discipline them if they do things that are in violation of any kind of ordinance. therefore implicitly i think we can make a finding in regard to this whole chain of activity that mr. rahaim was in deed involved. he was the one in charge. he was the one giving the orders. he's the one ultimately responsible. it's his department. we see that an ordinance has been violated so rather than slink away like we did a couple months ago a

mr. rahaim didn't violate a violation of the ordinance. i generally agree that the department was delayed in their production of records. there are clearly some problems that i see with this and you have discussed a lot of them already. the order -- >> [inaudible] >> i'm sorry. can i have my opportunity to speak please? >> every public speaker can speak and if the audience is silence. >> [inaudible] >> if you continue to ask noise i will ask you to leave. >>i am repeat i am speaking as an individual and not representing the task force at this time. the order of determination they reviewed found the department committed a violation. i'm not sure if that's the best way to proceed. i'm not sure that departments in that way violate the ordinance. i think it's individuals who either produce records or don't. i'm not sure how we expect -- or how that can be fixed at this point. this really does resemble in my mind the [inaudible] versus rec park hearing a few months ago. you could certainly find a violation. maybe that sends a message but i'm no

mr. rahaim was not kept informed of everything going on? and that he had every opportunity if he wanted to say something to show up at any of these hearings so he was not denied due process or notice or anything else unless you want to assume that every single employee tells him nothing and if that's the case he's got bigger problems than this. >> okay. i call the motion. all in favor? >> aye. >> opposed? >> thank you. >> motion is carried. >> [inaudible] >> unanimously. now there's a second charge in the referral from the sunshine task force which was a violation of section 67.29-7a which was maintaining records in professional business like manner. any commissioners have any comments? >> yeah, on that mr. chair i don't think that we have any evidence of any kind before us as to how they maintained their records, so i would be hesitant to vote on anything relating to whether or not they maintained their records correctly or preserved them correctly or not preserve them correctly. i think the evidence that we had was pretty strong that they

rahaim and i call for any public comment -- >> not yet. >> okay. >> [inaudible] >> do you have -- there is a report i think of the staff and a recommendation. >> [inaudible] >> is mr. ringel here? is there someone from planning here ? >> all right. want to be heard? >> [inaudible] >> five minutes please. >> [inaudible] >> 10 minutes, yes. >> sorry. >> there was no communication from mr. ringel as to his appearance? >> my understanding was that he was going to be here. >> he was going to be here? >> yes. >> commissioners, i am with the planning department. i am the director of commission affairs and custodian of record on the planning department. i am here on behalf of john rahaim. i won't need the 10 minutes afforded but i am here to respond to any questions you have. we conquer with the recommendation and respectfully find that john ion didn't will fully violate the ordinance. >> mr. ringel. >> all right. >> the matter has been called but you haveue want to be heard on it? >> may i ask a question? >> i thought maybe -- because the order we would have gone is let the complainant make his statement and -- you about i agree with you. okay. >> members of the commissi