You: a negation on the recording is missing from the minutes (“not”)
Says something differentBoth records carry the same sentence, but they disagree on a number or on whether it was negative. The same sentence appears in both records, but the recording contains “not” where the minutes have nothing — which reverses its sense. Around: “is part of your compliance with adequately noticing a meeting and providing the”.
What the minutes say
You said it was brand new. This was a part of the agenda that was posted online. This should have been there too. You see you sprung it on the public. We do not have an opportunity to ask questions that are based upon really any analysis at all because you have failed to provide this. So that goes along, should go along with all the meeting materials and that is part of your compliance with adequately noticing a meeting and providing the agenda and I would say that you have failed with respect to suddenly springing all of these CIP amendments which are obviously important upon us. So that is a noncompliance with the Open Meetings Act.
What the recording says
it was brand new okay um this was a part of the agenda that was posted online this should have been there too you see You' sprung it on the public we do not have an opportunity to ask questions that are based upon really any analysis at all because you have failed to provide this so that goes along should go along with all the other meeting materials and that is part of your compliance with adequately not singing a meeting and providing the agenda and I would say you have failed with respect to suddenly springing all the CIP amendments which are obvious obviously important upon us so that's a non-compliance with the open meetings Act any questions you you know with that said and I agree uh