Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
making the changes that we'd discussed and then sending the letter out for approval over <br /> email next week. He then asked Bouma if that process would meet the standards of good <br /> governance. <br /> Bouma weighed in to say that based on his best understanding,there could not be a voting <br /> decision made over email. But if we could summarize the kinds of changes we were asking <br /> Monast to make then we could structure a motion now referencing those items and take a <br /> vote.That would likely be more solid ground. <br /> Janway then asked a question of other staff members. We were selected to represent our <br /> governments, but do we have the authority to sign off on a letter that would go to another <br /> government? <br /> Richardson weighed in to say that he agreed that we would need our own governments to <br /> see the letter before sending it on to the state, and that is the process we are proposing. <br /> Janway thanked John for clarifying and said that sounds like a good process. <br /> Marcoplos said that the Council could send it out to whoever we wanted as the Climate <br /> Council, but the governments would have to vote on it and send it under their names. He <br /> then asked Monast what were the key edits to the letter that he heard in the discussion so <br /> far. <br /> Monast said that the changes to the letter itself would be to note that there are practices <br /> related to managing the pandemic that we should consider keeping as regular practices, <br /> stressing resilience as a way to reduce stresses in the long run, making explicit reference to <br /> the WHO manifesto.Those are the main items. In terms of making the letter more <br /> concrete, he was not sure that he could represent the Council on that. He would feel <br /> comfortable making the other changes for the Council following a vote and then sending it <br /> out a final copy to the Council. Perhaps the intention to make more concrete statements <br /> could be satisfied by sending additional letters in the future. <br /> Marcoplos agreed that those were the changes he heard and asked if any other members <br /> had other changes for the letter. Hearing none, he asked for a motion. <br /> Rubinoff then clarified the issue of"concreteness" not being a list of particular projects that <br /> we want but providing example actions that respond to both COVID and the climate as a <br /> way of describing our point. If you feel like our audience might benefit from that. <br /> Hansley-Mace then noted the short time remaining and made a motion that Monast make <br /> the changes that he just listed and that the Climate Council send the final letter to the local <br /> governments so they can choose to send it. <br /> This was seconded by McCullough. <br /> Marcoplos then called for a vote and the vote appeared to pass unanimously and there <br /> were no dissenting comments. <br /> McCullough then volunteered to assist Monast in making the edits to the letter over the <br /> weekend. <br />