|
I humbly and respectfully ask you to support this version of the draft and help us move it to the
<br />next part of the process. In closing, I appreciate your time and your consideration on this
<br />important matter that is very near and dear to many of our hearts and will undoubtedly have
<br />long-lasting impact on this community that we love. Mahalo.
<br />CLARKSON: Thank you very much. Brad, could you please comment on the
<br />KUROKAWA: —Yeah, just, yeah just briefly, we had a quorum of five at the last meeting
<br />when the revisions from the Planning Department came back, and we did actually have lead time
<br />to digest it. Not everybody reads the stuff before they come to the meetings, but we did have the
<br />opportunity to, you know, assess that. I think Glenn perhaps maybe would have liked a little bit
<br />more time? But, we did, I guess the other four members felt that the changes were either, were
<br />actually clarifying and that actually strengthened some of the language and then also that they
<br />were, the others we considered not substantive so that we were willing to move ahead rather
<br />than—because the option to come back and have another meeting to vote on the proposed
<br />revisions was open. Was on the table. And, so, it didn't, there was no motion and I know the
<br />you can go through the minutes, was presented.
<br />And, I do want to say to Glenn that I have always appreciated Glenn's sometimes contrary in
<br />nature because he would act, you know, he would bring stuff up and push it, and it was a
<br />valuable and continues to be a valuable process. But, we did have, you know, are procedure and
<br />protocol in terms of consensus and majority I think in terms of you know how the process was
<br />set up so.
<br />CARVALHO: When the—when I was talking about voting, I remember that the Planning
<br />Department said it was not on the agenda so there was no intent to vote. And, again, Brad, you
<br />know, we've gotten, I'll say this for the CDP. There were lots of, to put it politely, discussions
<br />on different positions. And, but we did come together to submit the final draft, and but he says
<br />it, you know, we had time to digest it. Some people can read the, read what's on the computer
<br />screen and print it out, but in order to digest something, I want, you want to hear somebody
<br />explain to you what this means, what that doesn't mean, what are the ramifications if you do, if
<br />you do this. And, that was not held until we had the meeting with the Planning Department, and
<br />they went over the ramifications and the explanation of why this is this and that is that. They
<br />tried to explain "shall" and "should" which till today I don't buy it, but so there was not enough
<br />time to digest.
<br />The other two members, my recollection is that they didn't say anything is one way or the other,
<br />of wanting to vote or not wanting to vote. They were silent on that issue, and because I again,
<br />because it was not on the agenda to vote, is one of the reasons we were provided that we couldn't
<br />vote. So, I had to make a motion to vote `cause it's not on the agenda, and it wouldn't happen.
<br />And, so, and I find that it was, again, I'm going to repeat myself `cause I feel very strongly about
<br />this. We were told, we was implied, he said that we will get to review and take action to see if
<br />we accept the changes or not, give our stamp of approval or disapproval as a committee.
<br />Part of the discussion wasI come from, I come from the ILWU. That's where I got my
<br />training on meeting stuff I come from the ILWU, and I was put on this committee. The ILWU
<br />EXHIBIT A
<br />21
<br />
|