Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Adams: That's not a change in ... I'm just looking at the order that we're <br />gonna be voting on or approving that we've voted on last month <br />which is the same situation. You haven't changed your situation. <br />Mr. Goodenow: Nothing's changed. <br />Mr. Adams: Other than it's the ... it's a different department. <br />Mr. Robinson: I'd second that motion just for discussion purposes. <br />Ms. Kahakalau: Okay. <br />Mr. Goodenow: Alright. <br />Ms. Kahakalau: Thank you. <br />Mr. Goodenow: I'd like to make it as broad as possible but... <br />Mr. Adams: The way we've been doing it in particularly in this situation is I <br />think we have been looking at ... when we had this long <br />conversation last summer ... my memory of that conversation ... we <br />could go back to the minutes but my memory of the conversation <br />in brief is that we could go as far as addressing bids to various <br />departments. <br />Mr. Goodenow: Right. <br />Mr. Adams: And that ... that would ... as long as within the department... within <br />our findings and conclusion of law ... what we talked about a <br />specific department that that would then cover any other bid <br />processes that were going be accomplished by that individual or by <br />the petitioner with that office provided that there were no other <br />situational changes in the facts. <br />Mr. Goodenow: Right. <br />Mr. Adams: And so that's why I'm asking the question about Public Works but <br />if in our order we specified a particular bid in our conclusions. It's <br />not the same thing to say it in the facts ... the facts are the facts. <br />Mr. Goodenow: Right. <br />Mr. Adams: The conclusion is the piece there which talks about at least that's <br />my view but if purchasing has a different position on this ... that <br />becomes a problem in how we word our order. <br />15 <br />