>> 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 discussion? nothing. not one word. and the library commission has also discussed on again, off again, over the years how about we just have action minutes, meaning we will only discuss or put into the minutes, the actual motions and votes for ourselves. because the sunshine... ordinance does require some summary of public comments. i

croix goes on and on in the letter about the complainant was peter warfield and then he goes on and defines, and so he talks about on page 2 of the letter, they referred it as a willful violation under section 67 hour miss patterson is not a elected official and will be held under chapter two. if you look at the order of determination and all of the documents, over and over and over again, mr. st. croix has overlooked the fact that it was the library users association against the arts commission which is headed by a department head who out to be responsible if not maybe the city attorney or the mayor. >> thank you you will have additional time to speak on this. >> i would prefer not to have this go forward, thank you. >> any additional public comment at this time we are going to look at violations of the sunshine ordinance, and the first one, mr. st. croix? >> okay. >> inform us on this? >> you have the staff memo with the details before you. neither nigh of the complainant will be here, they can resolve the case without them. as this has been continued a few times. if you prefer not to you

. >> at the bottom of it, the enclosure it says peter warfield, kate patterson respondent. >> could you tell us, which document? >> the referal letter from the task force that says march 7, 2013. >> are you referring to the cclisting? >> correct, because this letter is to us. and the task force is ccing what presumably the people who are the complainant and the respondent. >> okay. >> and to me, it seems that those don't change the body of the letter, they are just saying, i would read it as on behalf of or in order to reach the complainant, you need they are mailing it to somebody at the user's association and someone at the arts commission and that is not controlling relative to the nomination of the complaint. >> i am not trying to debate it with you that would seem to me a lay reading of it. >> i read the letter she appears as on... and represented. >> and it does not say that she is appearing personally, and she is appearing as a representative of the respondent. that is what the body of the letter and >> if you want to reschedule the matter that is fine. we will be happy to do tha