now i'm accused of stalking lazar because they don't respond to e-mails. they don't pick up the phones. i went to speak to his boss, rebecca quill. one day she wasn't there. a couple days later i got on a trolley and now i'm accused not criminally because there is no basis to any of this. it's just what they do and i would endorse the clark brothers because i know them. they are telling the truth. >> other public comment on this item? any questions from the commissioners of mr. lazar or mr. william clark? >> i have some questions. mr. clark, maybe i can ask you first. i am looking at the e-mail that was included in our packet i'm not clear exactly how this -- it's page 32 of our packet which it looks like it's an e-mail to s o t s. it looks like this was the text here is yours at least in the middle. i'm looking particularly at the portion that says "we sent howard lazar the following e-mail on may 27, 2011. >> that's my complaint. >> right, but you are referring to they mail you sent to mr. lazar and it says, mr. lazar i'm not requesting any documents but

lazar is not was not charged by the sunshine force with a violation of that section of the ordinance. he was charged with the failure to respond to a public records question, i believe. no. sorry. i meant that 10:30. >> well, that looks like he's met his burden on that. >> what he, mr. lazar has met his burden? >> i'm sorry. he has not met his burden on 67.22 b. " " >> both. 21 and 22. >> 67.21 b appears to refer to a custodian of the public record. and i think that's a document, isn't it? it doesn't sound like there were any documents. so if he's not requesting documents, but he said he's requesting information could mr. lazar be liable for failure to provide a record? >> i don't believe so. 67.21 b specifically address the situations where the custodian has received a request for inspection or copy of a public record. >> right. >> yeah. 67.21 b relies on e. >> i don't think 67.21 e was warranted either. >> which one, it doesn't track 22 b? >> which one? >> 21 e you are saying depends only on -- >> yes. it says the custodian refuse to comply with b above. >> yeah, 67.22 seems completely different. >> for the record i would sa