Laserfiche WebLink
..a <br />• <br />~Je agreed, since we could not agree on the language of the <br />Stipulation. Dave recognized that, although nothing formal <br />would be entered into between Cotter and the Board, the Board <br />would trust Cotter to pursue the remedial actions stated in <br />the December 3rd letter to Shelton. Cotter would trust the <br />Division not to pursue any other enforcement action con~:erning <br />these alleged violations until after Board consideratio~i of the <br />application. <br />Shelton made this proposal to the Board. The Board <br />decided that it would not set a specific date on which the <br />hearing would be continued. It would require Cotter to submit <br />a progress repor gat the February Board meeting~~~ <br />~ remedial actions Chips Barry then stated that he had reviewed <br />the Stipulation and was adamantly opposed to a Division or <br />Board commitment to seek no penalties or other relief. He <br />proposed that this language be struck and, instead, thai_ the <br />Division simply ag ee to postpone the hearing. I objeci:ed <br />that, if this were made to the Stipulation, Cotter would <br />gain nothing in return for entering into the Stipulation. <br />Barry responded that, without the Stipulation, nothing orould <br />bind Cotter to perform any of the undertakings set out i.n <br />the Stipulation. I stated that Cotter had committed to certain <br />actions in a December 3rd letter to the Division. Barr}~ then <br />"moved" that his understanding of the consideration given by <br />Cotter, in exchange for the Board continuing the hearing, were <br />the agreements set out in the proposed Stipulation. Dare Dunn <br />-2- <br />