and that they are we understand that under the law in the twin cities case it's clear that when you look at oil boys to be liberally construed and also make it clear that we take no issue with the exemptions that's not what our case is about there's four pages of exemptions i understand those that respect those but clearly that's not what we're here for we're here simply to identify the issue address the issue whether states are subject to a legislative intent is the method in which we can make that determination one of the most reliable indicators is actually the language of the statute itself and as you look at the statute we understand that public bodies which define the entities that are subject to foil and likewise indicated that the states attorneys are members of the gender body another aspect of the statute that i believe is instructive as the relates to whether or not the states attorneys are subject to boy or of the statute based on these two cases you have a definition of judiciary which includes states attorneys the conflict in arises if we look at what the legislature intended they certainly could not have meant for the states or part of the judiciary under public body section because then it would be conflict with section levon which allows for just a review there's actually no way that the station should be part of issue review so the statute itself the way that the held grates a bit of a conflict another area that i think is relevant pertains to other statutes to give us some indicators as to whether or not the legislature actually had a serious become members went on to discuss the fact that the civil there was no intention to ever have for you to apply the state's attorneys right there it was more of a public policy analysis would you define it as that or well i think that the whole issue with that particular act i take issue with the right of release number one well they were doing is taking an act of two thousand and ten and amendment under separate act and trying to tell us what the legislative intent was twenty seven years earlier and i  provisions i think like the open meetings it was on the open meetings act the states are has the obligation to make sure there's no violations woke me in under the act if they are investigating to determine whether there's been a violation of your means act that information is not subject for so the fact that under the open meetings act they make it clear that the state's attorney does not have to reveal this information under a four way request it respect to judges there's a lot of information that should need to be protected interestingly enough when that act was passed after that the legislature then passed another for a moment saying when we talk about this statute says executive and legislation does not include judicial and and the complication of second district said they're not included so they're not going to stop the foresight and even if you look at the legislative history which is another area that can be looked at in this regard you'll find that the legislative history as it pertains to say stories and again i don't know this is goes to the ambiguity issue but the legislative history you have represented her who  if you look at the legislative history as well it gets i think it resolved to some degree that ambiguity and i think the fact that the second district said this code bodies and that included issue that really does not become and is it appropriate to consider why there are these e mails related to court proceedings who would receive the for under those circumstances i mean the my question is is that is th subject away but the department of justice is again giving it's not does that help us in terms of telling what our legislation ten or maybe not but again it shows us some indication that this is well known information that certainly circulates amongst the legislators and it should be considered but what we talk about this purpose of the forehead again is the access to in the affairs of government the problem we now have is that we have a system they're completely left out of the picture they're not subject to it at all and that becomes an issue and in a couple of examples if for instance i had a good relationship with the county board and i have a piece of property is worth  much money against the perdiem zero but other circumstances may be that the states wants to deal with the current status the law there's no opportunity for the space train before and that's information that's a type of information that affairs of government has to be considered as we work down through these various things to them indicate whether at legislation that was matter that i think it really does but it is clear with regard to the judiciary that the legislature apparently has made and we've made agree or disagree but going back to the appellate court decision here mr working read it appears that the appellate court as i said earlier made some type of policy decision i don't know if it was struck out of fear of what could happen in the parade of horribles of before you did apply but are they basically saying we're not going to extend for you to the state's attorney's office unless the legislature expressly tells us to do so isn't that the import of it th defendants out on bond and provide supervision is released as various programs the catholic court held that pretrial service agency was performing clearly a judicial function and that they were directly accountable to separation of powers and a lot of other reasons the newman case the other case that i think is instructive is a case where the circuit court was discussed and in that case becomes apparent and nelson didn't really believe this carried a lot of weight because they said it was really just simply a question of whether or not a circuit clerk is a member of the state or a member of the county but what helps us understand is the fact that under the newman case they also discussed the fact that the judiciary controlled the in fact accountable to the jury to the judiciary it cannot be just absolute cannot be so it's for all these reasons that i am convinced that what needs to happen is body that is going to be entirely quiet of any access by the public and i think that would be a very destructive result to our system of checks about  is very simple is the state's attorney's office subject to for the way your has indicated and i agree with the definition of the definition of public body excludes judicial bodies in its definition think that the decisions of this court are contrary to the decision of nelson it is no question that states attorneys do perform executive functions and i think that that's clear we are prosecutors that is part of what we do w perform other functions in ministry to in some very small to show functions primarily we perform executive functions but this is not a functions test the point of which is that this would be a and that for this court to create a function test and to ignore the plain language of the constitution in our place in the constitution and by doing so would impose a test that would have some unintended consequences in this case it was not set forth by statute by the general assembly to create a function's test where one is not needed and it could lead to some entity to determine whether or not they are a public body for purposes of for you you would have to look at their example the state's attorney to see what function are they performing in that particular time how and under what circumstances was that record attorney does they perform executive functions they investigate and prosecute again cases that are filed or complaints filed against douglas so again if you look at the functions test where would you put the judicial in either body performs simply of the nelson court and a proffered that found that we can be included as a dish or body and therefore not subject to foot because when we look at other provisions the general assembly has said that judicial bodies or judiciary doesn't equal judges or simply the judiciary judicial bodies can be more than simply judges or the judiciary and it looked again it didn't look to an outside source to and yet the general assembly did in fact include them and change them to a judicial agency of state government and the argument has been and i think the fourth district spent a lot of time on this issue about why would you do that is there any reason you would change that and there was discussion about making them me from my county agency to a state agency but that the statute prior to two thousand and ten included that they were in fact a state agency so there would be no need to clarify what was already there say we mention this because in the contest our conclusion that the legislature took a rather ups cure to their own bleak half to include in the state's attorney office under the exemption of the fire act so in other that the fourth district apparently is finding that the stance you were looking at is ambiguous would you agree with that i think if you look at the statute itself it could have been clear i don't think there's a either specifically excluding and listing the states attorneys as being excluded from foyer or specifically including them would obviously make it much clearer but i think by working at the definition of judicial body and not using the word judiciary i think it's clear that they that the placement of the entity in the constitution is the sponsor to if they are placed in the constitution that that of it and back to my question is this indeed was that you are going your brief that that we should not look beyond i think be able to look beyond that to the legislative history i think that for purposes of throwing what age additional body is there may be times where you have to look past that the language itself because it doesn't define what a judicial body is if you look under forty and look under the definitions there's no definition of what you dish a body is the courts have looked at and determining that its absence from the statute has excluded you to sherry from foyle obviously you had to look a little beyond the statute itself to do that want to look at circuit clerks tha look at its placement in the constitution because they are not obviously judgments that have to be a determination again not by this court but in the pilot or her sister same thing when we look at pretrial services they are not listed anywhere in the constitution  and i know that that looking at that case i'm just i'm sort of the opinion in the second district when you look at those cases you look at what functions they were performing i think one of the things that you can also look at is what how are they statutorily created they were  as an arm of the circuit court again any subcommittees of any legislative executive or ministry of bodies may be subject to fly but also would stand to reason that any subcommittee of a judicial body would not be subject to  fall in that category yes you would have to look at the constitution to determine what in the definition of a judicial body is that portion may be unclear but the statute itself should be look at the legislative history and i think the opposite of curry's remarks i think you can look at the legislative history of for what weight it should be given that's the opinion of one state representative and i think in the fourth district this was a subject of much discussion during the oral arguments of is that the fact that one per representative makes one statement is impugn upon everyone who votes is impugn upon the senate to do not just hate in those discussions at the time but i think if you look at the language itself at the use of the word prosecutors it doesn't use the word state's attorneys at all and prosecutors as well where it involves well the first yes it does and i think it should of the first question though has to be asked is whether or not the freedom of information act applies to that particular public body if it does then the disclosure of records should be looked at to the schools in favor of public policy could there be examples in situations where that would be relevant there could be but that's not that the issue is never decided because the judiciary is not subject to foil so it doesn't matter if those are public policy or not are those of a public policy should second this was not our intent our intent was to have states attorney subject of oil and here's the bill that shows the nelson decision was incorrectly cited they have done nothing to have taken no action to do so it's the general assembl that would be to allow states attorneys or any other entity to be included in the foyer the statute is clear mr ways though in this respect with respect to the term public body it does mean all legislative executive administrative and i'm just wondering what do we do with our cases that indicate that the state's attorney is an executive body i guess that's why it went back to the question let me just finish with mr wagner is it seems like a good i just read through it again b that the opinion by the second district seems to take the position that and then you said it a couple of times unless it's specifically in the statute that includes state's attorney it doesn't include state's attorney but we still have to get over the hurdle don't it we've already found it to be an executive body and executive bodies is included in the statute regarding public property and i think in looking at those cases and not to split hairs with  definitions that i've been set forth by this court and other courts as there's executive branch executive article executive body executive functions and they all clearly mean different things this is a dozen the judicial side of  this court has decided over the years absolutely and again they're not in conflict by saying that we are a judicial body for purposes of oil because of how the general assembly defined public bought it doesn't have to do that again going back to the separation of powers argument it doesn't have to create a separation of powers argument issue because there again is no new super taishan of powers between the two entities we will still continue to perform executive functions but our placement in the constitution is a disp factor as to for purposes of foil of whether we can be included in that broad definition of judicial body absent a definition to the contrary and that's the key it's up to the general assembly to change or to modify that it's not for  and what they did was exclude you to show bodies from for it we also know that the states rights have been in the just article since the late eighty's hundreds that topic has been there for over one hundred years so we don't need to consider directed to the function of the state's attorney's office and whether or not it is or is not included in the foyer i represent another aspect of this case an aspect of this case that i think has certainly been overlooked by the  plaintiffs and an aspect of the case the state's attorney obviously can't speak to because he was an intervenor in the in the first case the freedom of information act like many legislative objectives has a fundamental disconnect between its theory and its practice and this case exemplifies that by the way in which the plaintiffs petition the county for the state's attorney's records we're asking this court to do is to adopt the whole thing in twin cities and to endorse a rule that states that public bodies are not compelled to disclose records that they are not the primary source for meaning that in this case because the county board runs the state's attorney's e mail server it does not have a responsibility under the foil to grant the plaintiff's requests and disclose potentially sensitive potentially dangerous information that does not belong to the county board and i can't think of a better example than this one it's file cabinets th board of may pay for the file cabinets that exist in the state's attorney's office but that does not give the county board license to go rummaging through the state's attorney's office at night and start handing out the state's attorney's file it's a content driven inquiry that essentially is what the plaintiffs repeatedly asked the county to do in this case and at certain points in time threaten the county stated that they would go up to the county for punitive damages stated that they wanted to turn the species in the case when really the plaintiffs said no business asking the county for information that the county couldn't give and then when the state's attorney's office complied with that request for a third time the plaintiffs then filed their first lawsuit and bring in the court system  ideally there shouldn't be this type of you know rancor and behavior in the point of process it should be very simple it should be a request or ask for information from the appropriate public body the public body compliance with the act grants that request than you know  withholds those documents that can be exempted pursuant to section seven of the act but that's not the conduct that occurred in this case and that's not what happened in the case before this court and so i think it would be it would be nice if that were a typical it would be nice if this were an unusual case but it isn't as somebody who deals with a lot of oil litigation i can tell you that this more often than not is the case and one of the reasons it is the case is because this board has not stepped in and said it's only appropriate to make a play request of a public body who has the primary source the public body who has the authority and the ability to give out and disclose those records but i don't think that there's any ambiguity in the statute i think the statute itself is very clear what i think needs to occur is a strong statement from this court that would deter this type of requests this type of unnecessary litigation in the future if there are any questions my response will be relatively brief a couple of things i need to point out regard to the state's theory and argument in humans and clearly held that they were addressing salaries and selection in that aspect of the capacity who should only related to salaries and selection but nothing else so the fact that the states attorneys are under the judicial article doesn't really add anything to their argument simply because they're only there for a particular purpose and if we get to the point to your point of justice thomas where we have this supreme court telling us that states are as members of the executive we have distaste tourney admitting that their executive at a minimum even in the states or is it a statement we ought to be have the opportunity the foyer that part of the station's work that's related to the executive and we have another rock or also said i'm not considering any other arguments of defense so the fact that in fact we can look at how these motions missed didn't even include this article or this argument about whether in that you have county he can has every right to do that if they have the information if the county has the information what they can do that has asked more time to respond because they need to consult with us they started as a substantial interest so what counsel suggesting we do is circumvent that if they're issue not i also disagree with jacobson on his interpretation of the twin cities between cities case was a situation where the board has a substantial interest the state's attorney has that same interest or  has the same documentation and i'm not sure is to widen the along very well but the bottom line was the state's twenty one receiving the voice says here you can have it all in the bush the no no you can't we have an exemption and so w