Please tell me what you mean Frank.  I thought we were excused from concerning ourselves with the legalities of the FDD program.  Are you saying that has no significance?

We can plan to discuss this on Thurs evening at Wolv.

Frank I want specifically to NOT discuss it.

By Thursday of next week it likely will not matter if we talk about or not as events of the week may likely impact this issue. 

We ultimately will not be able to recommend the continuation of a mandatory fdd program and that is why we should stay abreast of the legal side of this.  I am not saying we should spend time at the CAC meetings on this or attempt to insert this into the ohm/pi agenda.

 I am saying that this is a very serious issue that will be getting a serious review by the Courts very soon. This cac is in the middle of it, to a certain extent, and it is in our best interest to stay abreast of the developments.

This is why I have been pushing for more and more discussion on the alternatives to the fdd program to remedy basement flooding of all kinds.  

I am encouraged by the activity of some cac members who are taking the time to learn more and more about all of the relevent issues regarding the goals of this cac. The legal side will ultimately be tantamount in the decision to continue with mandatory fdds. Hence, it is important that the cac stay abreast of this issue, as well.

I have stated that I am willing to attend a "brainstorming" session and remain quiet or to only speak when asked.  I can do that... it may take a gag.  We can continue this discussion on Thurs.

Please recall that legal issues have been placed in the parking lot and the CAC has agreed to consider FDDs legal unless they are found otherwise during this project.  While it is certainly possible that the legality issue may be reviewed by the courts at some point in the future, the legal topic is not relevant to the objectives of this CAC.

Take care,

Robert

Robert, does this mean that your are commanding us not to talk about it on Thursday at Wolv Tap Room or at any other non-city functiion?

Frank, it sounds like this is important to you to be able to talk about on Thursday.  I'm going to take Robert's post as confirmation that I am ok to stand where I do.  However, it sounds like this is important to you and it sounds like many, many others who probably  might want to talk about it too.  If you know others who might appreciate this "off-grid" discussion about it, lets get it together.  I might be interested in just listening, as might others who feel similarly.  But let's pull that together.  Wanna make Thursday's Tap CAC The Legal Rap? 

 OHM is hijacking the conversation.   Please read the above:

 I am saying that this is a very serious issue that will be getting a serious review by the Courts very soon. This cac is in the middle of it, to a certain extent, and it is in our best interest to stay abreast of the developments.

it is in our best interest to stay abreast of the developments.

it is in our best interest to stay abreast of the developments.

it is in our best interest to stay abreast of the developments.

Frank,

I am not hijacking the conversation - I am simply reminding the group of the past decision of the CAC, to keep the project moving towards the objectives.  Remember, I have been charged with, along with Nick, to bring this project to a successful completion - with success being defined as completing our scope and assisting the CAC to make an unbiased recommendation that considers all options. Legality of FDD has been deemed to be outside that scope.  It is my job to help keep the group focused and moving forward to do that.

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

If by "it is in our best interest to stay abreast of the developments" you are referring to a discussion of the current status of the lawsuit, it might be best if I did not attend that part of the meeting.  The folks who have been threatening the lawsuit have made the threat to both the City, whom I represent, and to me personally.  I do not think that it would be a good idea for me to attend a discussion about the latest development about such a lawsuit. 

Take care,

Robert

whether ohm attends this meeting or any future meetings outside of the formal cac process is not a concern for me.  

i have always thought that the citizen volunteers should have a venue to openly discuss the process and to strategize and get our ducks in a row prior  to any formal meetings.  this is not a new concept and i tried to organize this last fall.

the consultants and the city certainly spend lots of quality time doing the same thing.  the only difference is: they are all getting paid for these meetings.

it astounds me that my request that the cac should stay abreast of the legal issues is misconstrued by ohm is in any way an obstruction to "keeping the project moving towards the objectives."  we can all walk and chew gum.  in addition, please consider the following scenario:

1. what if it was 12 years ago and you were on the SSO TASK FORCE that played an instrumental part in desiging and recommending the current FDD program?

2. fast forward to today and read the comments from the survey and listen to the impacted citzens.

3. fast forward to sometime in the very near future when the Courts rule that the FDD is unconstitutional and not legal.

now, how would you feel being part of that SSO TASK FORCE?  or......

how will you feel if you, as a part of the SSWWE CAC, had any part in recommending the continuation of this FDD program? 

we should stay abreast of the  "spearmint" legal gum, while we work on the alternatives.

i will attend the meeting  at WOLV on thurs and only inform the group  IF asked.  if those who attend want only want to get their data from the city and the consultants, that is up to them.  i personally, have reasons to take what many of them say with a huge grain of salt... if i could find some!