Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Shimmin: If someone requested us to be involved in the project, that is a <br />decision we would need to make. I see that this is intended to work in that the <br />fact that we are here may create a dialogue that could explore options to <br />uncover ideas. . . we would be advancing the ball. <br />Rennels: agreement <br />Kim Killin: As a roundtable, our job is to look out for basin as whole; if we <br />see a project that is not beneficial to the basin, we could at least issue an <br />opinion on it, kind of as a watchdog role... case by case. Seems like one of <br />purposes is to look for interests of basin as a whole. <br />Shimmin: Focus on fact that this Charter only mles interbasin workings; not <br />intrabasin workings. <br />Tom Bradberry: Arapahoe County: The clarifying sentence seems to cancel <br />out this possibility. <br />Harold Evans: Go back to statutes; under basin roundtables: "to facilitate and <br />continue discussion..." no where does the act say we are to be a watch dog. <br />Bradberry: Asks for clarification of Article V, NO.3: Should the basin <br />roundtables feel it necessmy or beneficial to bring discussion of a particular <br />topic... the committee members representing the basin(s) may raise the issue <br />during a meeting of the IBCC. <br />Wilkinson: Correct; this process must not be a fomm to kill projects; we are <br />here to facilitate solutions not to stop things. <br />Evans: Motion to adapt language suggested by Shimmin for Article V, Item <br />NO.2: <br />All negotiations between roundtables are voluntary and may be conducted <br />directly between the roundtables involved. <br />Roundtables should only become involved in individual projects if <br />requested by the parties involved in the project and only to the extent <br />req uested. <br />Seconded. <br />Bert Weaver: RE: parties involved: should this be proponent and opponent; <br />Shimmin: This will be "wordsmithed" at IBCC. <br />Vote: Opponents: 8 opposed; Majority - super majority. <br /> <br />3) Alternates to IBCC: appoint alternate when Mike or Eric cannot make it. <br />Wilkinson: IBCC left up to roundtables; comments about that if alternate <br />would have to attend with delegate; alternate must not have a void of <br />knowledge; <br />Shimmin: Recommendation to take no action on this because this will only <br />happen if we vote on anything. At this point, everything is consensus based, <br />would only matter if neither Eric or Mike could go; then we could participate <br />by phone, communicate with Russell George. <br />IfIBCC takes action where voting really matters and if bodies really matter, <br />we will come back to you. <br /> <br />7 <br />