Re: [council] RE: Ooops....[Re: Draft Council letter on the ARR]

[William Drake <william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Tim,

On Jan 29, 2010, at 5:10 PM, Tim Ruiz wrote:

>  There were no questions or objections raised regarding that
> sentence so I believe it was assumed to be part of the letter. 

> 
> On Jan 19, 2010, at 4:24 PM, Rosette, Kristina wrote:
> 
> I disagree with the characterization and it will likely be an issue
> among other Non-contracted party councilors.  Nonetheless, I agree that
> the letter should go to Council for review, and we can tinker with it
> later.