The draft “Ad Hoc Committee Working Document” has been revised to request the Board to delete critical parts of the work plan it approved October 27, 2022. The latest version is in the Board Packet here.
- The Ad Hoc Committee would delete as a “purpose” of the well site review “Process” “bring[ing] together shareholders holding different views in an effort to minimize those differences by exchange of information and discussion.”
- The AHC has decided to include in its forthcoming Preliminary Report its own “rough cost estimates” and qualitative descriptions of advantages and disadvantages of six well sites the AHC is still considering, but without any neutral professional inputs.
- The AHC has even deleted the step of having the Shareholder Advisory Committee meet and discuss whether neutral consultants should provide cost and hydrogeological information for inclusion in the Preliminary Report. There will be no inputs from SAC members on how to stretch the consulting budget to produce estimates that are not only better than “rough” but also unbiased.
- The AHC “feels comfortable” attempting to estimate certain cost items, but not including these large costs that may vary a great deal among sites: (i) site acquisition, (ii) permit acquisition, (ii) noise abatement, (iii) water treatment costs, and (iv) professional services. It also appears the AHC will not include in the Preliminary Report any estimate of the methods or costs of dealing with the septic system problems which caused denial of the Well #7 permit.
- After feedback and suggested edits from the SAC (but not necessarily any SAC meetings), the “Preliminary Report will then be presented at the next Board meeting.”
- The Board will decide which sites should be eliminated so that the consulting budget can be spent on “only the most promising sites.”
- The Final Report would be acted on by the Board but the recommendation for an open shareholder meeting with “extended comments” is being deleted.
If the recommendations in the AHC’s Working Document are approved by the Board, the quality in the Process will be sacrificed to cost and speed considerations. The Final Report will have the same flaws as the two prior reports that the Board five months ago found insufficient to support a site selection decision. All pretense of attempting to “bring together shareholders holding different views in an effort to minimize those differences by exchange of information and discussion” will be gone.
Please forward this newsletter to other Crestview shareholders so they can sign up to receive future posts directly. Click on the Home tab and read earlier posts, or use the Tags word cloud or Search box to focus on a topic. Shareholders may comment below.
Why go through this process only to skip the critical step of producing unbiased, quantifiable, total cost and water quality data?
Without that, how can we ALL agree the best decision was made?
Is any one on the board interested in displaying some real leadership here?
Now would be a good time.