information before us, and we only had miss gong at the hearings and we did not have miss ballard or mr. moren and some of this information might have changed some of our discussions, i don't know. but it might have. but i also wanted to point out that this privacy balancing, or interest, in my view, and i think that in the view of the courts, is not absolute and that is why it really is, a sort of balancing, and i think that it was incorrectly stated earlier that the birth holders, don't have their information released in fact, they do. you don't have before you on the record, maybe mr. warren has with him, the actual agreement to lease space, it is a lease, it is a contract, it is a real property transaction between the city and the birth holder and it says that the bottom that any private information, provided will be subject to disclosure, it is absolutely a 57.24 contract, what is at issue here is the contract information for people on the wait list who are not yet birth holders, and i think that they are in that gray area of whether their reasonable expectation of privacy is higher or lo