<div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><br></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Thu, May 12, 2022 at 8:05 AM Brian M. Sperlongano <<a href="mailto:zelonewolf@gmail.com">zelonewolf@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"> So the fact that someone can find something somewhere online to me is not an argument for its inclusion.</div></blockquote><div>Personal information is a blanket exclusion. The argument being made by the Park District is that having this information available to the public endangers these sites. That argument doesn't make sense when the information is already available to the public elsewhere.</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><br>
</blockquote></div>
</blockquote></div>
</blockquote></div></div>