RE: [council] Alternate Fast Flux Motion

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Kristina,
 
Thanks for the questions.  Please see below.
 
Chuck

________________________________

From: Rosette, Kristina [mailto:krosette@xxxxxxx] 
Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2008 9:17 PM
To: Gomes, Chuck; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [council] Alternate Fast Flux Motion


Chuck,
 
Some questions about your motion:
 
(Resolution para. 1)  Who do you anticipate will decide whether the
individuals are qualified and what test will be applied in making that
determination? 
 
CG: I am not the best person to say but I believe we as the Council
should determine who those people are with whatever advice we can get
from others.  There are people who understand the issue quite well. 
 
(Resolution para. 2)  Is "that have expertise related to the use of fast
flux" intended to modify "groups" or "constituencies"?   Also, one
reading of this paragraph is that otherwise qualified individuals who
are not affiliated with groups widely recognized as having expertise
related to fast flux would be excluded from participating on the expert
panel.  Is that the intention?  If so, a brief explanation for that
exclusion would be helpful to me.  On the other hand, "related to the
use of fast flux" could be very broad.  Is that the intention?  Again, a
brief explanation would be helpful. 
 
CG: There was no intention to exclude anyone; my intent was to make sure
we have very knowledgeable people who can help us understand the issues
as well as possible. 
 
Many thanks.
 
K  


________________________________

        From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
        Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2008 9:57 AM
        To: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
        Subject: [council] Alternate Fast Flux Motion
        
        
        Here is an alternate motion for consideration by the Council
regarding the fast flux issue.  Comments, questions and suggested
amendments are welcome.
         
        Chuck