>> >> yes, mr. hartz, i have a few questions. >> all of the subject matter of the complaints are all sets of minutes that predate the session that we had in february 2013. are they not? >> yes, but that is not the point. >> okay. but that is what you are saying that we should find that their failure to include in the minutes as you define it, rather than attaching them to the minutes, that should be a willful violation, that is what you are contending on what the task force are contending. >> how many years do you have to do something before it is obvious that it is willful? >> i am just saying that... >> yes, it is what i am saying, but what i am saying is after repeated findings you continue to ignore it, could he do it for ten, 20, 30 years. >> he knew what he was doing he is a smart man and he knew exactly what he was doing. >> and he did it on the basis of what the city attorney told him. >> no he did it on the basis of what he wanted to do to suppress public comment and use what the city attorney sa

and i was told that mr. hartz has had a lot of time. >> you have a lot of time, more than the normally allotted time. >> so we are opening this up to public comment and i believe that mr. warfield was going to speak. >> mr. warfield, were you going to speak? >> peter warfield, executive director of library users, i have had a long history with the library and unfortunately i can say that the new commissioner is mistaken. the job of the minutes is not necessarily to include anything that the commissioners say. or anything that their officials might say,vy been to a lot with the library commission. let me tell you they have it on frid which they wanted to put into the library and which we and the aclu at the chronic foundation thought or it was the technology that was highly privacy funding and so they had a forum and a fixed time went for two hours, and they had all kinds of invited people. and minutes, you know what they said? at the library commission for that meeting for the presenters and their two hours of dis

in a sense of what mr. hartz point was that the thing that is required if you are relying on some basis for redaction, you have to provide a written statement as to what the basis of that redaction is for. and that may be encompassed in the motion that we made in the earlier saying that they did not file the notice but we only referred to 67.26. and which did not, or is not the section that deals with what you have to supply to the public to justify the redactions. >> i agree that it discusses in more detail the types of things that can be withheld, but 67.26 does say that no record shall be withheld from disclosure unless all information contained is exempt and if there was a decision by the task force that that was not met because withholding was not kept to a minimum, i think we are required to address that issue. push >> i think that we are required to address it unless there is another source of information that we need and we are required to address it and do we have the information that we need to address

mr. ray hartz. >> i assume that i have ten minutes. >> ray hartz san francisco open government what changed from the time that this was heard back in february? for the benefit of the