overturn a binding opinion that this case is really sort of on that was issued by the attorney john so as we should kind of step into this understanding it's about the freedom of information act the cases will be focused on i think the idea of public body and transacting public businesses that kind of those outlined in that act it also involves though a group of citizens who were involved in discussions over a certain topic  general's binding opinion is one that i think misses a little bit in terms of the analysis over the dynamics of the set of circumstances given how the act is the side i don't think the answer is as easy as the  danville is a public money yes ok and when we look to that question as to whether or not it constitutes a public money are we looking at who came up with the information which is the citizens group because the city is a public body and has received the request if there are documents out there we have to supply them but i if you look at the request of self the request is actually focused on the group requests action or agendas and minutes  and e mails of the individuals and i know those see employee involved but if you have a request they're asking for e mails from these private citizens and so i think there's a separation in there twenty idea of the fact of the city receiving the request but what is it that that request or was actually look well and is there any have that information that's being requested well yes and i think that's the attorney general's point is that because the documents exist what we have to not exist that are in  get right under that ok that they're our possession because that we have in our possession we have to go at least that but that's not the end of the analysis and i think to a degree that's where the attorney general fails on the idea of the reality of the set of circumstances ok so you know they place a lot on the idea that the city spent time talking about what makes up a public body units and i think that it may not be the heart of this discussion but it warranted some analysis because i points i want to try and make i guess and maybe i'm wrong in thinking this but i think the attorney general can see that this group out there was not a public by city is yes this new bachelor is not and i am one through the analysis of how your terminal whether it was a public body or what's  and so to me i think that's important because when you look at the sunshine laws that are here directly toward government government does public business private groups are not and so i think again there is enough separation here to  talk about that there is a difference in the fact that the city to handle actually has documents doesn't necessarily translate into that what is involved in the documents is public business or that they are public records and so when you  get to the what is a public record is this simply has to be a document that pertains to the transaction of public business as the first element and then the second element of the being who has the where is it case then it comes down to whether or not they related to the transaction or public business correct and that's where the majority of my argument really isn't a lot of the spam because i don't want to belabor the point of the idea without this group as a public body because i think that's clear obviously and yet as we've sat the city can argue the point that these are possession because we provided them to the attorney general for their review and so the question becomes whether or not does this really involve a transaction of public business were they not still in in that venue in the city of me is ours they can do that ok i get it but the question i think turns on at what point do you consider something to be public business they so the attorney general says that because this group was talking about housing well that's public  says we want to do a b and c if a sad city employee go meet with this group and get their input and come back and flush out a or b i don't think we'd be here but that's not really what happened is th and so my impression i guess and then the city's position on this is this group is actually discussing their own opinions it's not the city council saying that there is housing court housing issues in the city of van there's they haven't acted on this at all so this group gets together i think cases suggest that city employees and gotten and get public attention and i know that deals with the open meetings act on the idea whether or not they have to comply with that but i think it also translates into the idea of why we're here t me seems to suggest that public business flows into the city council from let's say this group right i don't think that's how for us sunshine laws work i think it's outward from the city council that's the flow of public business  city council say we want to pick up trash in our city if that's their policy in their decision that they've done of go get all the equipment all the people that's all let's do that function everything that comes from that i would agree is public question i think that's kind of why they messed ration felt it important to actually get to the support with that question is just that's the question at what point do you determine that something becomes public this i understand there are city employees department anyway and they went out with a group that wanted to discuss of access to the main county airport cities solvent that in some fashion and totally unrelated to their duties for which they're employed by the city your position is obviously since they don't have anything to do with that particular function that's not even if we adopt a report that's not a business the city should be required to give you well and i would disagree slightly in the sense that is what you're talking about public goods for a project i think the city council's already made its decision to say we want to do this and because we want to say it's going to lay in the road well that's a say they didn't let's just say that some of to analyze that i think under the way that we see how foyle works but again i would submit that i would guarantee that that it would bend the review by the city council determine whether or not are we going to accept this better not it's there right there is where the discussion happens at the city council level is all of that does become a public record and i know that the the statute talks about that once a document is given to the alderman it is a public record if it's given to a single alderman it's not or your position is that you can't get all of the staff that happened before the city adapted they report something you can't get in minutes you can't get whatever was written down during these meetings because all of that happened prior job but what i'm suggesting is that in a sense it wasn't solicited because the group is talking about what the city is not and so off i have an idea and our presents a council i just do i don't solicit anybody's opinion out there at all i just go ok they have  employee cannot you know participate and make something public business and i think that's right but we're i'm getting a little i can't say confuse or i disagree is  mean we have to have the staff of the public body and the public body having possession and or using and so aren't those steps in there to protect the situation where an individual your possession you just a few moments ago indicated that the city of danville does have everything that the requestor is asking for in their possession is that correct it's in that employees office yes i think ok so i guess my question is if it didn't go to the employee if the employee didn't have the information in his or her office then one that the employer themselves and i do this myself as well i sometimes don't see will meet with these people to talk ok i'm not sure you understand what i'm asking i'm over the city of danville have an obligation to provide the minutes and the other non report information that the requestor is may please the court counsel the purpose of its open government or records civil light of public scrutiny unless an exemption applies under section one point two a four year all documents that are in the custody or possession of a public body are presumed to be open to inspection and copy here the city of danville is seeking to evade its obligation to operate openly and to provide public records to one of its residen the attorney general did not clearly err in determining that the requested documents were public records and that they were subject to disclosure under florida and her binding opinion should be upheld the city of danville says in response to your honor's question earlier this was not a rogue employee operating on her own the city of dan bills and an urban services department assembled the housing task force it was composed of city staff and various members of the community the housing test force's goal was to analyze data and to propose solutions to various housing related issues in the city then bill tried to distance itself from the housing task force and its work but it's important to remember just how central of a role danville played throughout the entire you know we the attorney general has never answered the question of whether the housing test for itself is a public body right she declined to consider that question because of course the request was made of the city of denver thank you  so the housing task force members included dan bills area transportation study director and bills urban services manager dan bills and to nearing an urban services director and the city of danville planner the task force meetings were held at the end builds public works facility city staff provided the housing test force with the data that they needed to analyze the test force recommendations were presented to the mayor and members of the city council and the city held a public meeting to present the final report to the public kevin flynn sent a four request to danville for meeting notices minutes created during meetings and other records related to the task force there's no question correctly declined to consider whether the task force itself was a public body for the reason that the request was made of them there's also no question that this court has discussed earlier with counsel that danville possess the requested records and in fact they appear in the record on appeal and there's no question that beside that their documents were public records for defines public records to include all documentary materials and writings that pertain to the transaction of public business that were prepared for use by or in the possession of a public body a task force that the city itself put together to address housing issues in the city pertains to public or community interests and not private it's danville acknowledged that the city adopted the housing test forces final report and so these documents that discussed community issues and that were in the possession of and used by the city constituted public records under way of whole thing councils position seemed to be that once it was adopted by the city that report the report became a public record and should be  released but that anything prior to that adoption does not have to be released is that how it works your honor there's nothing in or in the case law that supports this sort of forward looking versus backward distinction that counsel is trying to make or you're simply asked whether there are public records that are in the possession of used by the public body that pertain to the transaction of up with business and if those elements are satisfied then and unless an exemption applies then they are subject to disclosure under so many visioning a situation that say that we agree with your position in this matter are we going to have a situation where groups such as this w just not give the city the minutes in the other information maybe let them look at it but keep it somewhere else so that they don't have to release it i think those would still be subject to disclosure and before i hit the statutory definition it's very broad i'm making it shorter just for purposes of our conversation but it's used in the possession of et cetera et cetera various other things so those would still be subject to disclosure so in some as the attorney general correctly ruled when a public body has public records that are not subject to any of the statutory exemptions and those records are requested by a member public the public body must disclose if there are no other