publicly siding and identifying the eighty cairney report on police reassignments at his press conference now the court below address the question of whether the mayor waived  i was just going to say that unless the court has questions on that i have right to address the three issues that the city has contested all right and the first is that the mayor did not publicly cite  dictionary definition of cite as simply a reference to something usually in support of a something else and clearly that is what the mayor did at its best conference when the side of the cairney reports in support of the city's police a document aside it will if it has actually caused some action to be taken by the public body there's no legislative history of precedent to support that oss and it would be flatly contrary to the  assignments at all they're perfect as it is under the city's theory that would not be a waiver that the public interest is exactly the same so this action non action i think no sense for policy and certainly is nowhere in the specific language but there is nothing vague about saying this is the result of a study it either is or it isn't there are no alternative means that would make this fake and there's also no requirement that a citation one identifies a function for a functional term here it really depends on whether a reference is sufficiently specific determine whether a document is being referred to there and the city doesn't argue here that there was ever any reasonable doubt as to what document the mayor was referring to indeed in this answer to the complaint and in the original failed requests the city never released any issue as to what document was being referred to when if the reson he doubt you'd expect that they would have raised some question as to what document indeed in the pollutants that they have possession of the report that the mayor referred to as press conference so there shouldn't be any doubt in that regard seeking to change that position but without any reason why it was wrong when it made that position the law in the city is the only party that knows what's in the report so it should know whether or not it can be redacted and hearsay can't be good morning again come morning in the eighty's the court isn't disputed that the record issue here falls within the section seventy one death exemption and that mr dumphy has the burden of establishing waiver determine what portions of the record if any should be released bad like to begin by discussing the holloway case and in that case public officials disclosed an executive summary and a powerpoint presentation but if you don't mind lot of information about the record that was sought here by contrast and there are only made a general reference to the report that mr gunky seeks and so if the extensive disclosure the disclosure that took place in the harwood case did not more that's correct by definition no your honor and executive summary discloses information about what is in the full complete record itself and here there is no comparable  interpretation of what it means to publicly cite something is that the public statement should reference to it specifically says say that the government is taking action on the basis of the specific recommendation  promote encourage candor and open discussion in the previous israel context right until you wait exactly in light of that in light of the purpose of this section seventy one half exemption a reasonable standard for what it means to say that something is to a do this that document report as authority for a final official government the dishes and the like so the point of argue that if the mayor had said we had this report and we didn't rely on whatsoever then your argument would be fact that the former mayor referenced a two thousand and ten study where as mr duncan seeks a two thousand and nine study that discrepancy should not support a conclusion that mr gunky matches burden moreover at various times the former mayor referred to this report as different things is it management study a study of police in astray shing staffing a report in a review that ambiguity also means that he did admitted that this is it we have this document b c but it's so you knew what he was looking for correct you know that we acknowledged that the record that mr junkie seeks is a public record but that's different however from what the mayor the former mayor said in his public remarks when so even if the the the city knew wait document mr dumphy was requesting that's a within your or you're a position below and our position can she continues to be that they report cannot be separated in the sense that it's the facts in the report cannot be separated from its conclusions however it needed in the case that the report can be separated along different subject matters and so certain topics would pertain to the former mayor as public remarks but other topics in the report may not and so separation along those lines would be appropriate circuit court to undertake this endeavor to determine which which facts which subjects in the report relate to the former mayors remarks yes to the harwood case that we dealt with that some detail in the briefs i would just point out that when the public officials made their references that i think we presume it's to be presumed that they intended to refer to the summary which is what they actually referred to that and and there's no reason to think that they were referring to anything else that they intended to the city i think admitted that there was no question as to what was identified that the argument here i've never heard before that the identification has to be sufficient for the public to understand read it is  that creates kind of a black hole i mean how do we know that's sufficient for the public that we have to do surveys i think that the the issue here has to be simply it did identify it sufficiently  functionally for this the parties to know what document is being asked for and under phoria and finally as to the real me and i think it's important to work at the actual language that the city  stated below when i said it can't be redacted it was a very definite about that and the city hasn't given any reason why now it can be redacted so i  what that's possible but they took the opposite position before when they said the her report is is it in the in that strictly intertwined that it can't be understood except in terms of the whole repair work and they're what they're asking for now delays actually this is a reporter writing stories on police reassignments it is already been over two years and this would generate even further to place  know this question of police reassignments is now is still a burning issue well i can't be sure about that but possibly but the further appeals from that decision could be generated could be another year or two years if if the court just doesn't order that it be released and i think the fact that the city said babo that it can't be redacted that it can't be understood except as a whole report which they say below is sufficient grounds for holding them to their word