Laserfiche WebLink
88 <br />1 there -- potential violation I don't think would do <br />2 them any good. <br />3 I don't know what good it would do for <br />4 the Tatums. I don't know. I understand what <br />5 you're saying. I just don't -- I guess I don't <br />6 have a good response for it. <br />7 MR. CATTANY: I guess I just feel that <br />8 somebody got suckered into something, and now we're <br />9 trying to unravel it, and that's fine, and I want <br />10 to unravel it the right way, but I want to unravel <br />11 it in a way that doesn't set a precedent for the <br />12 future, and that's where I'm coming from. <br />13 MR. LONG: And we appreciate that. We <br />14 certainly do, because that is one of our concerns <br />15 on the way we've done business for 20 years within <br />16 the division. <br />17 MR. JANOSEC: It's very understandable. <br />18 Mark, I'm going to turn it over to you if you have <br />19 something to say. <br />20 MR. HELD: This is Mark Held, attorney <br />21 for the board. With regard to the issue of whether <br />22 the division has authority to vacate a notice of <br />23 violation after the point at which somebody has <br />24 requested a hearing on the violation, the reason <br />25 that I raise this question is, I think, probably <br />