the statement includes responses to mr. clark s questions. who ill this public information was not released on a timely basis it was nonetheless released to mr. clark on a responsive basis by virtue of those two hearings. furthermore after the last of those two hearings, mr. clark, on august 29, 2011, mr. clark sent me an e-mail regarding his proposal for the designation of street spaces or hey street. i fully responded to the question on page 2 of the letter to mr. clark on september 13. you have a copy that have letter before you in this section. while admitting my failure to respond on a timely basis i did respond to mr. clark thoroughly and on a responsive basis in the two task force hearings related to the subject matter. then the third sunshine task force charge 67.21 e for failure to send a knowledgeable representative to the task force hearing. i disagree for the following reasons. no. 1, the city attorney had adviced me that it would be legal for me to send a represe
support of mr. hartz s point that if you do not find that some fault occurred, there is no reason for the library to not switch back to what they were doing before. because if they can get away by switching, and putting something in the body for a while, and just as easy they may decide not to do it, so really there should be some promise or some commitment from the agency to make the change a policy change, a permanent change. and thank you very much. who would have thought that ten years after the sunshine ordinance was adopted we would be arguing over a legal term called attachment. the plain reading, the ordinary reading that any person would get would mean the inclusion in the body of the minutes. and that is what the public probably understood in 1999, when it adopted the sunshine ordinance. the concept is attachment is really a legal concept and it is actually said as attached hereto and incorporated herein and we don t get that i think that it is quasi legal ordinan
it is that they are just taunting the crazy guy. some cover story. good afternoon commissioners, dr. derek kurr. excluding public comment from the body of a minutes is really an act of disrespect. it is a statement that says that the members of the public are inferior, to the people on a particular commission or board or other body. and this is a wide-spread problem. and it will be so easily fixed many of the citizens who speak are extremely knowledgeable about the issues that they bring to your attention. so, it will be easy to just put the comments in the minutes and please everyone. i also want to speak in support of mr. hartz s point that if you do not find that some fault occurred, there is no reason for the library to not switch back to what they were doing before. because if they can get away by switching, and putting something in the body for a while, and just as easy they may decide not to do it, so really there should be some promise or some commitment from the
his mail address and i can mail those cd s to them. as of today, mr. nooi man has not been willing to meet with us. comment on this? david popel in this instance i think the d p w have met and gone above and beyond to offer to meet with the complainant. it has the back project that was looking for some financial controls. i was also concerned that this particular complaint was addressed to both mr. new rue and was the department head at the time and might also be bifurcated to chapter 3 hearing and it wasn t calendared. you can deal with mr. lee tonight. i don t know if you need to recalendar that as a chapter 3 matter. even if however your intent is to dispose of it, i think you can only dispose of mr. lee tonight. i m not suggesting we dispose of mr. lee, just the matter. i guarantee you are not disopposing of mr. lee. was he a department head at the time? my understanding was that he was in training, interim department head. this is not a violation. that s why it
supervisors meeting it gave him an opportunity to come up with a compromise. they came up with a suggested compromise and the item was put on the call of the chair. i left that meeting while thinking there was something in the works and i waited a year before i contacted mr. lazar and asked him what was happening. at that time i found out that s when i didn t get any response to him from him, i was asking, what s going on. have you heard from the valley merchants with regard to this proposal. what happened at that time that s when after i found out all this time later after going through the complaint and that you will stuff, i found out that the answer to my question was no, nothing has ever happened between the arts commission and the hayes valley merchants. so all this time i went through all these hearings, mr. lazar was present at the hearing but left in the middle of the hearing. all he had to do was sent me an e-mail saying nothing has ever happened. as a result of t