Laserfiche WebLink
Erickson, Wally <br />From: Erickson, Wally <br />Sent: Monday, January 31, 2011 1:42 PM <br />To: Shuey, Steve; Jeff Fugate; Cheryl Linden; Berry, David; Pineda, Loretta <br />Subject: Phone call from Phil Vigil, objector to May Day Idaho, M-1981-185 <br />Attachments: May Day CN1, aliegations.pdf <br />Dear All: <br />I received another phone message from Phil Vigil this morning, January 31, 2011. Mr. Vigil's message indicated that he <br />was opposed to the wording of my January 26, 2011 correspondence, see attached file, in which 1 state the allegations <br />are false (allegations that the 112d application was not available at the Clerk's office had been raised by,three objecting <br />parties). Mr. Vigil indicated that such language was the same as calling him a liar. <br />Prior to returning Mr. Vigil's call I discussed this and several other issues with Jeff. Mr. Vigil had left similar message on <br />Jeff's phone. Jeff and I agreed that I would return Mr. Vigil's call on behalf of the Division and that Jeff would not return <br />Mr. Vigil's message. <br />Mr. Vigil was inconsolable, I was unsuccessful in finding common ground. He refused to accept that my January 26th <br />language was simply clear communication. Mr. Vigil reiterated that my language was inappropriate. I told him I was <br />sorry that he had chosen to interpret my letter as something other than clear communication. He suggested that I <br />rewrite the letter. He threatened to get a letter from the Clerk verifying that the 112d had not been available on <br />January 19 when he had inspected the available documents. He refused to accept my call as the Division's response. He <br />indicated that since he had taken the time to call Jeff, that Jeff should take the time to return his call. He insisted that I <br />inform Jeff accordingly. He could not understand why I respond to communication in type, ie., written correspondence <br />receive written response and phone messages receive phone response. He demanded an explanation for why his <br />January 19 phone message was not investigated until January 26. He acknowledged that we talked on January 20, about <br />the issues raised in his phone message, but disagreed on critical points of the January 20th conversation. The critical <br />point being that he had stated that the 112d was at the Clerk's office but he had been confused by the other, older, <br />110(2) applications. On January 20th I had told him to concentrate on the 112d and ignore the older 110(2). He refused <br />to accept my explanation that on January 26th, I received his letter and on same day investigated and responded in <br />writing. Apparently, return service on the same day as received, is insufficient. <br />He stated that he was done dealing with me. He stated that he was writing a letter to LEP. I encouraged him to do so. <br />WHE