Browse
Search
Draft report - Vision Committee 1995
OrangeCountyNC
>
BOCC Archives
>
Advisory Boards and Work Groups - Inactive
>
Stoney Creek Work Group
>
Draft report - Vision Committee 1995
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/1/2018 11:46:03 AM
Creation date
8/1/2018 11:35:54 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
19
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
request that it be passed back to the Commissioners indicating that <br />it wasn't a "willy-nilly," last minute type of thing, but something <br />the group had taken time to think about and felt it was very <br />relevant. <br />David Yelton said that without further discussion, he wouldn't be <br />able to go along with consensus on that. <br />Bob Strayhorn said it was unfortunate that the commissioners left <br />early when this issue was discussed at the August meeting. He felt <br />they would have looked at it differently if they had been there. <br />He said it wasn't like James Bumphus and his brother and brother - <br />in -law have not been involved, because this was the fourth or fifth <br />meeting he had seen them at. He said they were concerned enough to <br />be there and that half of the members who have been appointed stay <br />away. He thought it was a good opportunity to get some long- <br />standing members of the community involved who were willing to be <br />involved. He said if the Commissioners were not sensitive to that, <br />then everyone needed to go home. <br />David Yelton said he wasn't out to reject someone, but was <br />concerned what it represented. <br />Lee Rafalow speculated that there were two reasons the <br />Commissioners may not want to consider this. The first was <br />continuity in the group and he agreed that people who participate <br />need to have all the information. He said he would argue that <br />James Bumphus had been to as many meetings as some formal <br />representatives and for that reason his appointment would not be <br />disruptive. The other reason the Commissioners might not want to <br />do additional appointments is it raises whole specter of <br />participation to anyone who has an interest in the process. He <br />said he had advocated early on that everyone should be able to <br />participate, but felt the process was too far along now and that <br />continuity was needed. He said if the group could express to the <br />Commissioners that there was a way to improve the representative <br />aspect of the group and that continuity was not lost because James <br />Bumphus had been a participant, then the problem could be-solved <br />without opening a can of worms. <br />Elio Soldi said he agreed with Lee Rafalow that this was an <br />exceptional case. He didn't think other groups would be asking for <br />membership and felt that a strong case could be made to the <br />Commissioners that this would not disrupt the process. <br />David Yelton said he intended no disrespect to the people from <br />Bumphus Road, but asked if people had been attending meetings, why <br />was the connection never made that there was a representative for <br />that geographic area? <br />Harold Daye responded that no one ever said anything. The only <br />thing they ever heard was Stoney Creek; there was no indication <br />3 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.