had a photo extracted basically or are developed from the video itself and i wasn't clear from the briefs whether or not your client was asserting that he never saw that photo of from the video consists of all of the effect of the system that was provided in this case by counsel just a briefly go through the defendant was arrested in november thirteenth within a week counsel called him and gave her gave him the first offer fifteen years a month later after a phone call he's she sends him a letter stating the charges the sentencing range outline the three options go to trial her there's two possible pleas outlined all the evidence in great detail i believe th been stuck up an entire page single space that it was a biography and if and it was involved there was a confidential informant and that there was circumstantial audio and video that was going to be used and that coupled with the money that they found in this pants is could be enough to evidence his participation in the sale and one thing to note is defense counsel only stated that count three was the one that the state would likely prove him guilty of the other three counts i believe she stated he had a good chance of getting out so i think that's very important now because it's showing she was being effective and that she wasn't there some something in the record someplace about this supervising a month after he was arrested and then in february there was another letter she again went over all the options she informed defendant that his ultimate sentence could result in up to thirty years in prison and that would be consecutive with this current eight year prison so i think the ultimate plea deal of eight years is pretty understanding as to why definitely would accept that and then a week later he comes in the defense counsel state she's ready to go to trial and then said takes her doesn't say he's ready so then it goes another month forward after he's aware of this plea deal which he states of the most emotional withdraw hearing that he only had a week to contemplate this deal on the record clearly context that he had over a month and then well that presumes that somehow there's a problem with a week that's also sure high it's a kind of the spanish in clay i think looking at the span of a former trial court judge is i would have wants to do yes on and then there's further evidence that shows wouldn't allow defendants take the plea deal number one because she felt he would be under duress number two it was already withdrawn by the prosecution this is march seventeenth letter and then it's set for trial i believe and april fourteenth which is the other month and sort of going to trial he enters the negotiated plea agreement and then the following month he states oh no i didn't mean to do that so now we're at the tree a defendant this focusing on within that force which is the video and that still is taken from the video which is defendant's exhibit number three and i believe justice harris you are referencing the testimony about this if you look in the state's brief on page thirty one i actually analyze the record quite closely and all i want to testify regarding defense exhibit three was in this form he stated that it was defendant and i believe there was testimony that was a grainy blurry photo so we're i'm sure maybe it was him maybe it wasn't him defendant never even testified as to that specific exhibit the record does not show that at all and there's also testimony from this corner that stated she sent all these exhibits the defendant multiple times at least twice prior to entering the negotiated guilty plea so even though she didn't show the video as your honor stated that is not what's required by law what is required  whether it was reasonable considering all the circumstances and i think clearly all evidence in this case shows that she was providing effective assistance that went somewhat above and beyond what is required by the law and that is a fundamental right that equals and therefore  two thousand and fifteen meeting i have now with the appellants have not appealed all of those all of the counts which were dismissed on a motion for judgment on pleadings their only of healing t it's subject to novo review before i discuss section two here just briefly wanted to discuss with the overarching purpose of the open meetings that is it's to provide  a safety net for members of the public to understand what's going on in a public meeting it's to protect their right to know and to make sure that they have sufficient information to made the decision whether or not they want to show up to meeting and discuss something that's of the importance that and what's important in this matter in this february seventeenth meeting his that the underlying agenda items which are which were contesting here pertain to development of the private subdivision in a public park it's called the mill creek subdivision so that is something that i would ask  take into consideration when we think about what the standard is here people want to know about the development of a private own private least subdivision a little part so the question is what is a public rec these items were were on the agenda which has been which was provided as part of our three and they were just described as lease rates and restrictive cup and it was bo approval of lease rates and board approval of provides housing it's and that is the only explanation that the members of the public received before days over as required well it's our argument in can it's my argument might tension that if there should have been some explanation about what these leaks rates pertain to meaning are they lease rates for canoes i think the streets for a boat slip is carte watch for someone to request more and more information from a public body i think though that if you look at those if you look at the statute itself it states two things it says recite the nature of the matter being considered i won't argue that there was some discussion of the nature of the matter being considered lease rates and there was some discussion of the nature of the matter of christe repellents up in obviously being a person could reasonably imply restrictive covenants her tame to property but the statute does go further than that it requires other the district twenty six case and the question there was there were a few issues but on the matter of section two eat you found that posting a link to the a copy of the agenda a copy of the separation agreement and then listing and under roll call action items and pointed terminations issues with suffici we don't have anywhere near that level of disclosure here we're not asking we're asking simply that the public be provided some very limited information about the business  taken or anything like that i'm simply saying that it's some point before the voted state and in a way that is accessible to the public the district needs to do more than just excite the name of a pretty generic statement lease rates they need to explain what that is for any it i don't think it's that i don't think it's really that difficult it says the nature of the business being conducted to me nature means essential elements or essential characteristics so there are to me the essential characteristics of a lease rate is what does that week's rate apply to you i think that's an essential characteristic you'll be able to find out once these are recorded so i think it wouldn't be difficult to assume that if someone asked before the meeting about these things that would have been the same answer no i have no the not going to be tow before no i don't believe they were going that i believe there's what would make a difference if someone had actually shown up at him and told well and in fact your honor so there were two open sessions of this meeting during the first open session during the public comment period someone did get up and ask are you going to be are you going to be discussing the mill creek police raids and comments today and then gave a discussion  asked the board some questions about it and didn't receive any reply your point is that the statute if it has complied with what's the public in a position where they don't have to go find out more about what this agenda item might be it would be explained in the agenda itself so that if it did say discussion of canoe lease an individual that had a concern about the no park subdivision would not be concerned about attending that meeting however if their gender item said discussion of no previous subdivision place that individual would doubt that that was something that was going to be answer that question and it pertains of theirs personal property real property vendor contracts there are leases for things and our real estate that's my understanding what was right those are two six fifteen most interact with clients are looking for is yes there's i don't agree with this statement that this is actually to pretty clear and unambiguous what i would agree with is the notion that that means we know exactly how it should be applied to a hard to shift and what we're asking is for the court to determine if this meets the floor of what is required by that statute i don't think it's necessary to wait for the would be very difficult at all why i think you have to i think that you would need to say at the very least lease rates for mill creek subdivision lines or you need to say restrictive provision to avoid being sued well i don't think that there's no imposition of some good faith test in the open meeting zach it's good you violate these minimum standards which are pretty minimal i mean we're not asking board to resign every provision of a lease or something like that we're asking them to add a couple words so that people know what they're talking about i think of course if this court provided that guidance here which have the opportunity to do public body ok but in my example so you're saying that on it and maybe you're not saying so i don't know but the description of the agenda item alone would have been insufficient to comply with to we but if there was then discussion in open session after they came out of exactly the obsession to indicate that they had if they were voting group all of us will bus transportation down crack that and then that would be compliant with t that's all that we're asked so you can have general descriptions in your agenda but the people at the meeting i mean if you hear them here and you still don't know even the general idea of what was being voted on there's a problem i think as long as you as long as there is a description before the vote i think that's mission is a hyperlink an important character is there something that we should look to the was president springfield then nothing was present here to further form the public i'm not asking you to look at bad as evidence of what the minimum threshold are i'm asking you to look at that and say of course i mean that seems  above and beyond what the disclosure requirements are we decided what the what the meaning of that statute doesn't include now you talk about what it what our what does it need to include and i think here that if you look at it just saying restrictive restrictive covenants and lease rates it's just not enough under the circumstances you know can i give you a test and work every time you know but that's would by what i would like to see and what i think is a the minimum should be set you should explain again pertinent details this way which use in that springfield opinion here is to me what pertinent details are one where where it where if it's real estate but what kind of property are we talking about are we talking about real estate and if so tell us what real estate is it the mill creek subdivision or is it the entire park and to what is so with the lease rate i think it's pretty clear what a lease rate is it's it's a lease rate with restrictive pounding and i think you also need to describe what the back of the net pertains to it it's not evident right on the face of it what it is very nice of you just a very simple i'm talking about a word or two here in the agenda for a word or two that could have been spoken at that second session of the open meeting that would have resolve ok we're going to go to this bus transportation group and you move to approve a bus transportation contract with john doe best transportation right is adequate assuming there's a motion to approve the school bus transportation contract absolutely that's  problems what takes it out of the example that i get so in the with respect the lease rates the commissioner who moved the approval of the lease rates and it's really hard i don't know if you listen to the  but it's very difficult to follow but the that wasn't a real transcript that was it was very difficult it's quite but the commissioner who moved to approve that said motion to approve the lease rates that came from the appraisal there was an appraisal that had previously been talked about at the mill creek subdivision what they were doing was septa buying a piece of it to do long term leases for private to raise money for private residences so they had an appraisal that also what the lease rates would be so commissioner guard just moved to approve the lease rates that came from the appraisal there was a second and that was approved so that's what makes  so i believe that does make one issue if you're not careful here what we have what happens is we go down the slippery slope and i know that sounds like law school and i'm but i'm old enough to talk back to law school so it's a slippery slope do we have to that identified that's what he's saying was minimally necessary to identify this to bring it within compliance or to leave so for using nat as what i believe was a conceited  but maybe if we just talked about it in the public recital meeting before final action that would be sufficient so maybe it's just a question of requiring the park district t what the legislature mean by public results it could have been here's where we get stuck i think we're all talking about the same thing i don't think the agenda and the public recital before the motion really have to be different for toohey i think it's the same thing you can cover that not either spot you can cover it with the agenda or you can cover it during commission or comment you can cover it during public comment you can cover it in the motion you covered in the discussion about the motion you can cover it just as long as it is property i don't think i think what they did was adequate when you say do we have to identify the property what do you mean just a statement you mean this why do you mean the whole subdivision do you want the legal what is the green mill creek was it's no big deal to add milk receptivity to it we're trying to hide anything or do anything wrong the fact of the matter is it was clear this was a this was a big deal it was a player what we were doing and you know i think if it gets sent back i suppose we'll make it more clear at the trial court but i think they match they match the burden it's a very minimal burden they met that i just wanted to see first i did not file the original complaint in this case right knew nothing about the mill creek subdivision until well after this litigation is underway and i just want to make a point and i mention because i think section two easy is it to be interpreted as a protection for members of the public so that not necessarily somewhere when they come to that though the agenda is supposed to let people know very generally what the public body is going to be talking about this section to eat i think is in there so that when after a vote is taking someone can walk out of that room and it if the chairman got up and said that then when they came back and they voted on it people would know what just happened i mean that's the that's the point here that they need to know every single detail you know the open meetings act i think you have to i think you have to go back to the what the language so you have the word it says the nature of it what is nature well webster is dead dictionary there's about fifteen definitions of nature but the one that is pertinent to this discussion says the characteristics the essential elements are identified in some fashion yeah i have to identify it so if we're talking about a springfield opinion when you you said well you were saying the trial judge's ruling but you said the guideline was you don't need to give a mill creek subdivision i think that's guidance for a park district they don't have very many other types of issues that come up if you say a vendor contract here in the  but but i would just say that i think that a little bit of guidance here would go a long way because it's not this should be as complicated or as slippery of a slope as we're talking services but i don't think that stops if someone were to look at that even without having green and i think the springfield school district probably met the requirements of too easy is the name the guy who is being separated and they it was put in the employment and employment terminations section they provided people knew what was going to be voted on all right no small par