2008-09-04 TNORTH KOHALA CDP - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

them a chance to be a part of this decision making? That was my whole idea behind taking the parenthesis out. WOODWARD: Well, if I might address that question. It says “in consultation with.” So if they’re absentee and there’s a meeting listed to develop a trail and they’re not there, well, then they’re not there.You know, they’ll be given due notice but my guess is that this is not going to seriously affect much of anything other than adds that the landowners into the loop in regard to making these decisions. So I don’t really have a problem with that at all. Okay. Any other comments? Okay Mr. Hayashi. HAYASHI: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just from a, grammatically, perhaps it should just read that “with the community, affected landowners, scientists,” rather than including the “including.” IWASHITA: I understand the comment. I guess because there’s a concern procedurally that we not make a substantive amendment, to use the word “including” to me makes a very clear argument that we’re clarifying and we’re not making a substantive change. We’re not adding another group of people. Once you start adding another group of people then I think the argument that you’ve made a substantive change becomes, or that’s one point on that side of the scale, if you will. So that’s why I would urge leaving the word “including” in because then to me it’s as close to a slam dunk for a clarification argument as there is. HAYASHI: Okay. With that I’ll take the roll call that includes the word “including affected landowners” after “community.” Oh, it was moved by, was Iwashita and seconded by -? OGATA: Lani. WOODWARD: Bowman. HAYASHI: Commissioner Iwashita? IWASHITA: Yes. HAYASHI: Commissioner Bowman? BOWMAN: Aye. HAYASHI: Commissioner Domingo? DOMINGO: Aye. HAYASHI: Commissioner Housel? HOUSEL: Aye. EXHIBIT C 11