Laserfiche WebLink
DRAFT <br />Minutes, September 22-23, 1993 Subject To Board Approval 4G <br />It was MOVED that the Board vacate the violation. MOTION <br />FAILED, DUE TO LACK OF A SECOND. <br />The Board deliberated on the matter further. <br />it was MOVED that the Board uphold the Division's decision and <br />not vacate the violation in this Case. SECONDED AND MOTION <br />FAILED 1 for (Stewart); 2 against (Jouflas and Danni); 1 <br />abstention (Kraeger-Rovey); Danielson not present for the <br />vote. <br />It was MOVED that the Board vacate the violation. SECONDED; <br />VOTE WAS 2 for (Jouflas and Danni); 1 against (Stewart); 1 <br />abstention (Kraeger-Rovey); Danielson not present for the <br />vote. <br />During discussion of the Vote, Ms. Linden stated that the <br />Rules require the Board to act on a two-thirds or majority <br />vote, when a quorum of Members are present. She said that <br />this is a provision of the Minerals Rules (Page 5, Rule 1.3) <br />which also apply, in general, to Coal Program cases. Ms. <br />Linden said three affirmative votes would be required for a <br />Motion to pass, in this case. In that instance, Board <br />Chairman Stewart said that the Motion did not carry. <br />Mr. Long suggested that the matter be handled in the same <br />manner as Item 18, and the Board agreed. <br />It was MOVED that the Board continue this matter to the <br />October 1993 Board Meeting and hear the matter again in <br />entirety or provide the other Board Members with an <br />opportunity to review the tapes of this proceeding, in order <br />to participate in the hearing in October. SECONDED AND <br />PASSED 3 for (Stewart, Kraeger-Rovey and Danni); 1 against <br />(Jouflas); Danielson not present for the vote. <br />Board Member Stewart requested that the Division forward a <br />letter to the remaining Board Members, in explanation of this <br />proceeding. <br />