. >> david pilpal. >> on page seven of the minutes and i am sorry that i was not at the meeting last month, and the four paragraphs. >> and you were not there much at all. >> i have been around. >> all right, never mind. and for paragraphs up from the bottom on page 7, the second line, executive director stated that she should have requested it, and might you insert, st. croix and that might be consistent with the way that the minutes read and as to the two motions assume that the motion to be recused came first but it is numbered second and it is just confusing in reading it and i don't know if you want to renumber the motions and as to the language of both motions, and the commissioner hayon be maybe, just commissioner hayon be recused from this matter and permitted to be recued seems a little more attenuated and to the main motion, it could read a little better somehow that mr. herrera has the burden of proof and that the commission finds no violation of the sunshine ordinance and find, the grammar is just bothering me that is all, otherwise, thank you. >> is there a motion to app

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 however, that where there is a privacy interest, either asserted or recognized, that there is a need for a privacy balancing, which i would not consider a 6255. balancing, but i think has in some ways, similar interests. or similar factors to be considered. and i'm fairly familiar with the case law, and in my opinion, the case law is not great, or particularly on point about this. and i think that the... >> let's back up

pilpal. we have found that there was no, and we have not found a violation, we are referring it back without yet, finding a violation, that to, and i think that the task force then, when it gets it back and needs to go through its process and send it back to us as it normally would through the process. or not, if we choose not to. >> or not. >> that is an option. >> yeah, i mean, yes. i think that nobody is soliciting your input at this point and i am not trying to be rude and we just need to... >> i just want to have to go through this again. >> thank you. >> all in favor? >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> opposed? >> no. >> no. >> motion passes. 3-2. >> the next item on the agenda is a closed session.closed session held pursuant to brown act section 54956.9(a),(e)(2) and sunshine ordinance section 67.10(d) to discuss anticipated litigation as defendant in light of mccutcheon v. federal election commission, no. 12-536 >> public comment? >> we need a motion for go into closed session? >> the public

pilpal. >> and i agree with mr. white on that last point. >> you said that it was your view of the task force that there was a problem with naming mr. ginsbuger and could you elaborate on your rationale for that? >> first the initial underlying complaint was against miss gong and she is the person that appeared at the various hearings and after the order was made and came back to the full task force, and we heard it at one meeting and continued it, and i suggested in there was in order, in there seemed to be an interest in naming mr. ginsburg, since he was not the named respondent in the underlying complaint and it was continued in part to give him notice, via the e-mail that was referenced of the subject hearing so that his due process was addressed. and i am not sure if that was sufficient, and i think that we are now, at that question, precisely, and i think that we need to have some clarity between this commission and the staff and the task force, about what steps needs to happen, in order for the things to be p

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 anu

. >> david pilpal and two items under item three, the campaign finance discloser program, and the last sentence and the first paragraph there, the next filing deadline, i guess was march 24th and so, i guess this report is not capturing who was or was not timely on that. and maybe it will get an update next month? >> and, it also occurs to me that i believe that this thursday, is the oral argument in the alan grossman case, and i don't know that we are going to know anything further after thursday, and as to the disposition of the matter and that will probably take up to 90 days and if there is anything, interesting that happens at the hearing it might be worth discussing briefly at next month's commission meeting. >> we should be so luck y >> i mean, seriously, there may be implications depending on how that goes, as to the sunshine ordinance and how business is transacted here in the city otherwise. and so, it is an important matter, i do take it seriously, thanks. >> and items for future meetings? >> i think that mr. chair, that mr. pilpal was reading my mind because i was going to

>> david pilpal and i know that i have three minutes but i want to explain my perspective and perhaps, how the task force addressed this and to the new members, a member of the sunshine task force, welcome. i think that the two issues here, which the staff laid out, and i think that in a pretty clear way and if i may disagree in part with the analysis and the conclusion is whether there was a violation of the ordinance and if so, whether it was willful and then the second is, is mr. ginsburg, the correct, actor and did, tack force follow the correct procedures to bring them before you and just to summarize, i think that as to the first, i believe that it was a violation of the ordinance and i don't believe that violation was willful and as the staff probably heard at some length going to the task force meetings and i believe that the advice of the city attorney should be given weight by the department. and it is clearly their legal advice, that determination of the task force also should be considered by the department, and when a department is getting conflicting advice from the city