Fwd: (no subject)

1.    Janice Hodge, Algem Peterson, Anthony Richards and Attorney Delila Pattern are supposed to be at the Thursday Meeting.

 

2.    John just called me to tell me that he called and left a message for Anthony Richards to call John back so that John could verify who would be at the meeting.  When Mr. Richards called John back and John asked who would be at the meeting, John claims that Mr. Richards told John the following:

 

"Attorney Amerling we can settle this; we can work with you." 

 

As a point of clarification, Anthony Richards was referring to the letter from Mathes indicating that the application to modify the minor permit for the existing compound be treated as a major permit rather than a minor permit.  Mr. Richards was not referring to the intake line.

 

Question 1 - do you want John to have the meeting on Thursday.  John claims to be now quite certain that he will be able to resolve the major/minor permit issue with respect to the existing compound. 

 

I will attend the meeting on Thursday as well, if you permit John to go ahead with the meeting?

 

 

 

Question 2 - do you want me to ask Cecile to make sure that Bob Mathes attends this meeting? 

 

If John is telling the truth, it appears that Anthony Richards was asking to settle this issue without going higher up the food chain.  I was not on the phone call with John and Anthony Richards so I can not verify that Richards did in fact say this to John.  

 

3.    John's summary of argument.  I note in John's argument that he concedes that the initial development of LSJ had adverse impacts.  I would never make any such a concession and would like your permission to tell JOhn not to make that concession.  Beyond this, my witnessing how Peterson and Hodge react to John's arguments at Thursday's meeting may well be instructive as to whether or not John under stands his relationship with the folks at CZM

 

4.    Doug is under the impression that what has been applied for in the November 2007 application for modification of minor permit as it relates to the existing compound is no longer what you wish to have constructed on the existing compound.  Consequently, Doug would have you pull the application to modify the existig permit and would avoid even a resolution of the minor/major issue at this stage. 

 

Is Doug correct, is there any point in getting approval of the November 2007 application?