[Vision2020] (no subject)

[Sue Hovey]

Jeff, I will ignore your implication that my concerns weren't substantive and simply respond:

1.  We weren't involved in any litigation regarding sewer rights, were we?  I certainly don't rember any.

2.  And how are we in competition with other governing bodies regarding sewage disposal?  I would hope that competition would be based on historical fact, not something simply inferred by one of the bodies.

I would further suggest that should you not consider my ideas substantive, you would simply ignore them and move on to whatever you define as substantive.  

Sue H. 

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Jeff Harkins 
  To: Sue Hovey ; vision2020 at moscow.com 
  Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2008 5:04 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vision2020] (no subject)


  Sue - it was not only imminent litigation, it was actual litigation - Moscow had already filed suit on the water transfer.  Fits perfectly!

  And Moscow was impacting the ability of a sovereign state (WA) from pursuing their economic development plans.  Again, fits perfectly.

  Now, let's move on to something substantive - the actual agreement signed.  What are your problems with the accord reached?

  At 01:14 PM 2/14/2008, you wrote:

    Well e involves competition with other public bodies and f involves imminant litigation, so how do those fit?  Certainly none of the other options do, but even so, looks like a stretch to me.
     
    Sue H
     
     

      ----- Original Message ----- 

      From: Jeff Harkins 

      To: vision2020 at moscow.com 

      Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2008 7:13 PM

      Subject: [Vision2020] (no subject)


        To those interested, it would appear that items e and f of the state statute for executive sessions would be applicable.



        (e)  To consider preliminary negotiations involving matters of 

        trade or commerce in which the governing body is in competition with 

        governing bodies in other states or nations;

        (f)  To communicate with legal counsel for the public agency to 

        discuss the legal ramifications of and legal options for pending 

        litigation, or controversies not yet being litigated but imminently likely to be

        litigated. The mere presence of legal counsel at an executive 

        session does not satisfy this requirement;



--------------------------------------------------------------------------

      =======================================================

       List services made available by First Step Internet, 

       serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.   

                     http://www.fsr.net                      

                mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com

      =======================================================
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20080215/8dd68fec/attachment.html