mr. sancrow. speaker: i know the commissions started the hear, but i thought perhaps you would address the point i made about your conflict, which is so obvious and so apparent that the only fact that i come second, it seems that it's being heard through me. the commission cannot hear this matter because of its obvious conflict of interest that i sent out in my memorandum. mr. sancrow realize a year and a half ago because he had proposed at a meeting that you amend the regulations to exclude the commission, himself, and the staff from the sunshine regulations that are the basis for this hearing. and he did it to avoid the appearance of any possible conflict. you declined to adopt his proposal. obviously, appropriate to do that. in any case at the end of the discussion at the meeting, the commissioner said that the commissioners would recruse themselves and would be adjudicated. it's more dramatic because under the charter, the commission is responsible for everything that mr. sancrow does. period.

mr. sancrow. the body of which you're apart, oversees the staff and can set policies, but the commission has the authority to conduct its day-to-day operations, and i think part of that is, as here, if their sancrow is sued, i think he can defend himself without having to seek the opinion or seek the approval of the overseeing commission. speaker: do you think it was a good idea that mr. sancrow did not at least inform the commission and seek the approval of the commission before starting and getting involved in such a major piece of litigation? aside from anything that might be your opinion relating to whether he can do this independently and the staff has some sort of independent power to do these things, do you think it might have been a good idea that he told us this was going on and sought out our permission to do this? speaker: i'm happy provide legal advice to the commission, but i would defer to you as to -- beyond strike legal questions, what is or is not a good idea. that's a call that i