Laserfiche WebLink
CARR SMITH: Thank you. <br /> VITOUSEK: Is there a reason why this would have to come through Leeward before it goes to <br /> Windward?If we defer it now could it go straight into Windward and then come back to us? <br /> YEE: I think Jeff was only suggesting if we know we're going to change the language, we <br /> would want to present that to Windward, cause if we change the language Windward has to see <br /> it. So, if we know you're going to change it, we'd rather just take that step first. <br /> CARR SMITH: Since Windward can approve it as it is, Mike,then— <br /> VITOUSEK: Then they'd have to see it again once we - - -but`I guess my thought is that if we <br /> are recommending revisions, and you guys make the revisions and it goes to Windward and they <br /> approve it and we approve it, that's enough. <br /> YEE: Yeah, I, I think that's fine too. Like I said, one way to play it would be, we know where <br /> your concerns are, we would try to push something in front of Windward, and we could always <br /> come back to Leeward with what they approve, hopefully it's fairly solid and no changes, and we <br /> can proceed. You know, it's no different than us having to wait till the next Leeward anyway, so, <br /> I, I kind of agree. <br /> VITOUSEK: Yeah, I'd be okay with that.You know, I, this is super non-controversial, it's just <br /> trying to clarify the definition for all of our sake, to save us the headache down the road. You <br /> know, and, and I think we can get a good definition. I think we all understand where, where this <br /> definition is, so, to me, I'd be totally comfortable saying okay,we'll defer this and you guys <br /> take, you know, do your, whatever you want to put into there and take it to Windward, and then <br /> when they accept it and they come back to us, we have it in front of us, Windward's accepted it, <br /> let's go. You know, let's move forward. <br /> CARR SMITH: Mr. Van Pernis. <br /> VAN PERNIS: This is in response to Jeff s comments. Is a ambiguous or badly worded bill <br /> quickly approved better than a unambiguous good bill that we could live with forever? <br /> CARR. SMITH: Obviously they felt that this was fine or they wouldn't have presented it to us. <br /> Okay— <br /> VITOUSEK: I guess we can vote. <br /> CARR SMITH: I guess we can vote, yeah. We've got a motion on the table, so, let's see where <br /> we go with this. Go ahead, Tracie. <br /> CAMERO: Sorry, I just want to clarify. The motion is to defer it, correct? <br /> CARR SMITH: That's correct. <br /> 15 <br /> EXHIBIT G <br />