November 13, 2002
giant lava lamp
I don't know about you, but I'd go visit a giant lava lamp. Surely there have been many many worse tourist attractions.
Posted by Laurel Krahn at 12:42 AM
Comments
Yeah, and the national news blasted my area for wanting to make a park around the nation's largest glacial hole.
The headlines read things like "Archbald throws taxpayer money into pothole". (Obviously the headline was misleading.)
What's so stupid about making a park around an historical & environmental area? I mean, what's so stupid about making a park, period?
But I'm sure there's a lot of people who would probably think the giant lava lamp is a more interesting tourist attraction than a glacial formation.
Posted by: Chloe at November 14, 2002 10:34 AM
Subject: Giant Lava Lamp Application, WA-CERT #WA23006
1. Exactly who prepared, submitted and is applying for the $850,000?
2. Exactly how was the unanimous endorsement from the Soap Lake City
Council negotiated, who was involved, and what was the timeframe leading up to
the city’s endorsement?
3. What evidence exists that the taxpayers, residents and voters of Soap
Lake were given information about the $850,000 grant request, the
endorsement, public hearings, to support the city council endorsing the $25 million
project?
4. What backup and demographic data substantiates the applicant’s claim
that the Giant Lava project will benefit 6,000 people, and how these 6,000 people will benefit?
5. Who is the applicant of the $850,000 grant request? The City of Soap Lake, The Grant County EDC, Brent Blake, John Glassco, the SL LALA Foundation, Terry Brewer, jhein@grantedc.com, Jean Waller, or other?
6. The application claims the total Project Cost as $25 million that the applicant (City of Soap Lake) has raised $50,000 to date and requests funding of $850,000. Provide a detailed budget, which explains and details
exactly what the $25 million are for and how it was arrived at.
7. Provide verification the applicant has actually raised $50,000 in actual funding, from what sources, for what purposes, when it was received, and
where it is deposited.
8. Provide a proposed budget for the requested $850,000, what it will buy, what it is for, who will receive the work which will be contracted for, and explain whether the expenditures will be made on a competitive basis to industry, or whether it will be awarded on a single/sole source basis.
9. Provide details, including backup data on 10, 50 and 100 jobs the applicant claims to create, job titles, job descriptions, salary for each, how these figures were arrived at, and by whom.
10. The applicant should be required to provide convincing evidence, proof and documentation to backup their claims of how the proposed Giant Lava Lamp would do anything for economic development and it will be the catalyst
for other business investment and re-development efforts by others who will benefit from the influx of tourist dollars.
11. Provide backup that whatever design documentation and illustrations they may have prepared provide evidence that the project is feasible.
12. The applicant?s justification for removing messages which were
posted on their site, justification for locking everyone out from the site, and justification of their wild claims made in their public relations campaign and hype.
13. Provide revenue flow amount projection for years 1 ? 5 to substantiate their claims of AVA LAMP will draw tourist dollars, other business investments, revenue from tourism and B&O taxes, and fees that will provide the resources for improvement of local infrastructure and it capacity to meet the needs of the anticipated growth and revitalization of the community.
14. Provide sound evidence and written concurrence from Grant County, EPA, DOE, FAA, and other state and federal agencies, that the project will
not require any approved permits, studies, limitations or meet any other ordinances, rules, regulations of any of these or other agencies.
15. Provide evidence of approved permits from county, state, environmental, and Federal agencies, and/or evidence from the same stating that none will be required as claimed by the applicant in the application.
16. What was and is your role in regard to this application?
17. Provide the schedule and flowtime for review and approval or rejection of this grant application?
Posted by: brent at November 15, 2002 02:52 PM
Seattle Times Corrections Policy Standard: "The threshold for what constitutes an addressable error, clarification or explanation is whether published information is factually inaccurate, whether it affects readers' understanding in a meaningful way or whether it is offensive or disrespectful to a significant number of readers. The decision about whether and how to address an error should be based on reader respect, journalistic clarity and common sense."
Article said: "Like maybe a proposed $3 million, 60-foot lava lamp."
Correction: Northwest Life
The 60-foot savior: Town pins hopes on giant lava lamp: The cost of a proposed giant lava lamp in Soap Lake, Grant County, ranges from $3 million to $25 million. The figure was incorrectly reported as only $3 million in a previous version of this story. [Originally published Tuesday, November 12]
Article said: "Times didn't used to be so tough in this quaint Eastern Washington town of 1,730 on the route to Grand Coulee Dam."
FACT: What is the source of the town’s size of 1,730.
According to: http://www.ofm.wa.gov/census2000/pl/tables/ctable10.htm
Soap Lake population in 2000 was 1,668. Detailed breakdown of population identified in above site.
The above population numbers include all of Zip Code 98851, which includes Lakeview, which is NOT part of the city of Soap Lake. In 2000, Lakeview population was 797, making the population of Soap Lake 971, not 1,730.
No breakdown of Soap Lake vs. Lakeview population figures is found for 1990.
Article said: "The lake's unique mineral content used to draw the ailing and health-conscious alike to its frothy shores, while restaurants and businesses devoted to wellness competed for space on the one-block main drag."
FACT: The Lake’s unique mineral content still draws the ailing and health-conscious alike to its frothy shores, from world ‘round. Small vocal minority of outsiders and newcomers would just as soon see the lake turn to fresh water and stocked with trout for sports fishing. The article "accepted" what the Lava Lamp publicity promoters said without verifying its truthfulness.
Article said: "I personally do think it's going to happen," said George Sharp, tourism-development manager for the state."
FACT: George Sharp as a state employee has no business promoting an idea as a state employee, which is totally unfeasible and ridiculous. Quoting Sharp is fine, yet there are no quotes from any number of the 90%+ of the people at Soap Lake who consider the whole idea just a goofy publicity stunt aimed only to draw attention to its promoters who are not even full time residents or registered voters at Soap Lake. A balanced story would quote Soap Lake civic, church, education, and other leaders, which want nothing of it, and not for a second believe it will happen.
Article said: "When he got the flash, the key to revitalizing the one-restaurant town that he'd come to call home, he wasn't going to mess around. "
FACT: What does it mean, when he got the flash? Was it a religious experience? Was it an overdose or too much to drink? What qualifies Blake to be an expert at revitalizing what the article incorrectly refers to as "a one-restaurant" town? The FACT is that Soap Lake is NOT a one-restaurant town at all. Anyone going into Soap Lake with open eyes will find several fine restaurants: There is Don’s Steak House; there is the Businessmen’s Club; there is Nan’s Greatest Pizza Parlor; there is the Lamplighter; there is the B&B at the East Beach. Food is also served at several other fine establishments.
Article said: "I see this as a wonderful place that could be even more wonderful," he said. "It just needs to have a little more than what it's got. So I said, 'What about a giant lava lamp. Eh?' "
FACT: Blake lives in Gig Harbor. Few have seen Blake or know Blake, He is a land developer looking for fame and fortune in a small town he recently discovered. Nobody ever asked the people of Soap Lake what they consider wonderful, or what they think about the kooky idea of a giant Lava Lamp, which will never happen. The people of Soap Lake disagree that Soap Lake needs a little more than what it’s got. If Blake is so convinced that the people want it, he would not have arm wrestled the city council behind the scenes, not once giving the "people" of Soap Lake an opportunity for a say in the matter.
Article said: "What could have been written off as a "dude-I've-got-this-great-idea" idea has captivated the tiny town — maybe because the lava lamp, no longer just an old hippie accessory, is enjoying the kind of renewed popularity that Soap Lake seeks. "
FACT: Nonsense. Captivated the tiny town? Says who? Brent Blake? The man is a recent newcomer to town looking for fame and fortune. He has no clue what Soap Lake wants, nor will he ever. His goofy Lava Lamp publicity stunt has only captivated the news media as a bizarre story and a curiosity. The people of Soap Lake are not amused. Whoever came to town to get a story took Brent Blake’s word and the resulting story has besmirched it’s people who were completely sidestepped. Sad, indeed. The Lava Lamp is nothing but an old hippie accessory, there is no evidence whatever that it is enjoying any renewed popularity and Soap Lake does not seek it. Brent Blake seeks it to fuel his public bunco scheme. Lacking any scientific poll of the people of Soap Lake, a City of Soap Lake Public Hearing, or any other empirical data, the statements made are merely repeating what a slick attention-seeking promoter claims to be the truth – and is nothing but unsubstantiated PR. Shame on the Seattle Times for publishing such a biased article.
Article said: "Or it might be by the lake, or be mounted in a plaza, or just stand alone. Blake, 60, isn't too clear on the details, just the vision. "
FACT: Lets face it: Blake hasn’t got a clue where a Giant Lava Lamp might be mounted. Blake is not only not clear on the details, but his vision is a pipe dream without any backbone to it. Why is such a quote published without any quotes from any number of people in town who find this publicity stunt a complete abuse of the good people of Soap Lake? How can an idea of this magnitude even be considered anything but a goofball idea when the promoters have no knowledge about what it will really take to make it happen? Their application states no EPA, DOE, or other state or federal agency regulations require any environmental studies, impact studies, permits, etc. What Blake suggests is absurd.
Article said: "Splitting his time between Soap Lake and Gig Harbor, the Harley-riding, ponytailed architect has found that selling an enormous lava lamp to a tiny town is practically a full-time job."
FACT: The fact is that Blake is a long time Gig Harbor resident who only recently discovered Soap Lake. No need to belabor the obvious. Nobody asked him to "sell" his Lava Lamp publicity stunt. If Blake sees it as a full time job that nobody asked him to take on – maybe he should read the tealeaves. An idea, which the town would welcome, would sell itself and would require no selling. The fact is that he does not have any money to make it happen. The whole BUNCO SCHEME follows the typical scam: appeal to the hidden greed of the victim(s); create an appearance that is real; promise unbelievable payback; in exchange for up front support. As with traditional bunco schemes, the payback never comes and the scammers ride off into the sunset without ever being heard from again.
Article said: "All the town needs is a little lava love."
FACT: Ridiculous. The statement in the article is not in quotes. It is not attributed to anyone. Where does it come from and what does it mean. Other then Blake and Glassco, there is NOBODY in town who would make such a goofball claim. Lava Love? What in heavens does "Lava Love" mean? With due respect – the whole article may be a joke – and whether it is or not – the people of Soap Lake are not amused. PLEASE. Lava Love? Please find some people who feel the town needs some Lava Love, and we’ll find you a few hundred that will tell Blake and Glassco what to do with their ridiculous Giant Lava Lamp.
Article said: You think, 'Oh, it's too silly,'" Blake said. "But then every time I talked to someone about it, it just put a smile on their face, and I thought, 'Maybe it's not such a crazy idea.' "
FACT: People at Soap Lake know when they hear a bunco scheme. People smile at Blake because that is the polite response when a stranger starts telling you something which makes absolutely no sense. The fact that Blake says that maybe it is not such a crazy idea is an obvious admission that the thought has entered his mind. Why base the whole story on what Blake says? Why stop there? This is supposed to be an accurate depiction of Soap Lake and it’s people? Is this how the Seattle Times expects to increase it’s readership in Soap Lake?
Article said: "Neither the city nor the county has anything to spare to light the lamp, and most of the town's residents are barely hanging on."
FACT: Blake states in the grant application to the state tourism office that he has raised $50,000. This is in direct contradiction to the article’s claim that there is no money for the project. Why the discrepancy? Why was this not followed-up, investigated, or corrected? The Times has a copy of the application. Why is the article not corrected on this and all the other points? Why? If in fact the Seattle Times feels the article is accurate and truthful on all these points, respond why the discrepancies are so obvious – and you correct only the proposed $3 million vs. $25 million cost of the project – when in fact the source of the corrected $3 million does not exist. We have provided EVIDENCE of the source for the $ 25 million. Why does the Times not provide the source for the $3 million, other then perhaps such a source simply does not exist. Is this the type of journalism the Times is so proud of?
Article said: "Appeals to the state are in the works, and Blake is working with the Business and Tourism Development Office to draft a business plan for the lamp's future, looking into loans and grants to give the project legs."
FACT: The state Tourism Office does not write or author a business plan. There is no business plan. Blake has submitted a grant application for $850,000 for unspecified expenses; has submitted the grant application with the City of Soap Lake as the Applicant; and no groundwork has been done by the promoters of this scam on loans, permits, studies, etc., which would put the horse pulling the cart. As none of these have been worked ahead of launching a massive publicity stunt, the promoters of this idea have put the cart pulling the horse; and the newspapers such as the Seattle Times were willingly used as the promoters of the bunco scheme, legitimizing the fraud.
Article said: "The concept recently got the green light from the Soap Lake City Council as well, although admittedly, the council's support didn't go so far as to include a contribution from the public trough."
FACT: Concept? The City of Soap Lake has done much more then that. The City of Soap Lake is actually the APPLICANT of the Giant Lava Lamp Grant. Why was this omitted from the article? The City of Soap Lake is bound by its own code and an agency of the state not to further and promote PRIVATE enterprise, and pursue a project of this nature without first holding PUBLIC HEARINGS. Two years ago, the City of Soap Lake proposed to construct a public dock out into the water of the lake, on the East beach. Two public hearings were held for what was a $20,000 dollar project. The entire population of Soap Lake attended by the busload – in opposition. The whole idea died quietly. Several incumbent city council members lost re-election over the dock-stunt. This is a $25 million dollar venture and NO HEARINGS were held or mention was ever made to the people of Soap Lake – and the Seattle Times omits any mention of this background as well. This is good and honest journalism?
Article said: "It's different, let's face it," said Lesley Slough, a council member. "But I'm for anything. We really do need a shot in the arm."
FACT: Different? She is for anything? Sure. Three years ago, on January 7, 1999, the Soap Lake City Council voted and approved an ordinance to allow lude and XXX nude entertainment within the city boundaries. This was done without any public hearings. To this date, it is very doubtful that many at Soap Lake even know about this ordinance. Don’t believe this? Stop at city hall, and ask for a copy of it , the text of which is so lude that PENTHOUSE would not publish its content. This is the desperation that apparently council members like Lesley Slough feel when they are willing to support ANYTHING – on top of violating the public trust which requires public hearings which they refuse to hold. Why doesn’t the Seattle Times check the FACTS before publishing such a story full of holes?
Article said: "Around town, the consensus on the lamp was a resounding, Well, why not?"
FACT: Really? Around town. What does that mean? How many people were polled, by whom, when, and what is the basis of "around town" and the "resounding" well, why not. Please. This statement cannot be a news story. Whatever it is – it is so full of whoever feels that way, that it is ridiculous. This statement is FALSE, without any foundation, and makes an affirmation which is furthest from the truth. You have gone so far on to FICTION that it is quite doubtful that you would correct the long list of untruths cited in the article. It is doubtful that there were bad intentions on part of the writer or the Times – but in the end – the article paints a picture, which is literally unbelievable.
Article said: "Blake's selling his idea all over Soap Lake, sitting the folks down in his living room one at a time and changing their shrugged shoulders to dawning nods of agreement."
FACT: Blake is not selling his idea all over town. He talks to a small circle of friends; that’s all. How many people has he convinced to agree? Why did the article not talk to and quote all those people at Soap Lake who shrugged their shoulders, and now love the lava love idea? PLEASE.
Article said: "I think it might fly," said Mayor Kenneth Lee. "It's just unique enough to be different, and it would draw people, that's for sure. Or at least they'd stop in."
FACT: The city is broke. Check out the facts. Why doesn’t the Mayor talk about the fact that he and the City of Soap Lake have applied for a $850,000 grant from the state for the $25 million project, when the city hasn’t got enough money for street lighting?
Posted by: Brent at November 15, 2002 02:56 PM
Source: http://www.oted.wa.gov/ed/wacert/using_the_system/View_Project.asp?CERTID=WA23006&RevisionNum=0
Project Title: Giant Lava Lamp
WA-CERT ID: WA23006
Revision Number: 0
Application Date: 10/1/2002
Project Type: 9 - Tourism Development
Months to Complete: 24
Project Description: The project is a unique theme structure or tourist attraction to draw people to Soap Lake and assist in the revitalization and redevelopment of the community. The design is the World's largest Lava Lamp "like" structure fully functional as existing lava lamps only at a scale of between 40-60 feet in height and 18-24 feet in diameter. Brent Blake has acted as project manager and John glassco as consultant and co-developer. The project was started in May of 2002 and has received support of civic leaders of the City and County. The Scope of the project:1.Gain acceptance of the project within the community, County and State.2.Complete engineering and feasability studies.3.Determine costs and budgets.4.Prepare architectural and engineering documentation.5.Bid and build structure. Project is seeking phase 2 of this description.
GMA Compliant?: Yes
Quik Site Candidate?: No
Small Communities Pilot Candidate?: No
Certified Communities Candidate?: No
Current Need: Feasibility Study/Engineering Report
Pre Permitted?: No
Capital Facilities Plan?: No
Comp Plan?: No
Business Plan?: No
Benefit Population: 6000
Phased Project?: Yes
Phase Number: 2
Phase Count: 5
Phase Years: 3
County/Tribe: Grant County
County Contact: Terry Brewer
County Priority: 0
Applicant: City of Soap Lake
Applicant Contact: Jean Waller
Applicant Phone: (509)246-1211
Applicant Email: jhein@grantedc.com
Contact:
Notes:
Total Project Cost: $25,000,000.00
Raised to Date: $50,000.00
Requested: $850,000.00
Dollars: $0
Program:
Source:
Department:
Agency:
State District:
Federal District:
Jobs Created in
1-3 Years: 10
Jobs Created in
3-5 Years: 50
Jobs Retained: 100
Outcomes: Traffic accessments, accounting of City revenue, real estate sales, consumption of utilities and other resources, Business and Occupation taxes, permits and fees, etc.
Economic Diversification Strategy: The project satisfies, in a singlular structure, the extreme need to create economic re-development and re-vitalization of Soap Lake, through the attraction of tourists. It is a project which will be the catalyst for other business investment and redevelopment efforts by others who will benefit from the influx of tourist dollars.
Planning Efforts: Project complies with regional planning components of the eco-tourism issues outlined in the Ephrata-Soap Lake Economic Plan, the Grant County Comprehensive Plan, and the Cultural Corridor Planning in progress.
Engineering Reports and Feasibility Studies: No engineering or feasibility studies have been prepared. This is the next step necessary for development of the project.
Secured Funds: No
Other Efforts: We prepared design documentation including photo/illustrations of the project, developed a web site at www.giantlavalamp.com and gained local, national and international publicity for the project, through all media sources including radio,television, newspapers and the internet.
Local Infrastructure Improvements: The project will draw tourist dollars, and other business investment into the community. The added revenue from tourism and B&O taxes and other fees will provide the resources for improvement of local infrastructure and it capacity to meet the needs of the anticipated growth and revitalization of the community.
Compliance with EPA/DOE: N/A
Other Factors: No
Posted by: George at November 17, 2002 03:56 PM
Source: http://www.oted.wa.gov/ed/wacert/using_the_system/View_Project.asp?CERTID=WA23006&RevisionNum=0
Project Title: Giant Lava Lamp
WA-CERT ID: WA23006
Revision Number: 0
Application Date: 10/1/2002
Project Type: 9 - Tourism Development
Months to Complete: 24
Project Description: The project is a unique theme structure or tourist attraction to draw people to Soap Lake and assist in the revitalization and redevelopment of the community. The design is the World's largest Lava Lamp "like" structure fully functional as existing lava lamps only at a scale of between 40-60 feet in height and 18-24 feet in diameter. Brent Blake has acted as project manager and John glassco as consultant and co-developer. The project was started in May of 2002 and has received support of civic leaders of the City and County. The Scope of the project:1.Gain acceptance of the project within the community, County and State.2.Complete engineering and feasability studies.3.Determine costs and budgets.4.Prepare architectural and engineering documentation.5.Bid and build structure. Project is seeking phase 2 of this description.
GMA Compliant?: Yes
Quik Site Candidate?: No
Small Communities Pilot Candidate?: No
Certified Communities Candidate?: No
Current Need: Feasibility Study/Engineering Report
Pre Permitted?: No
Capital Facilities Plan?: No
Comp Plan?: No
Business Plan?: No
Benefit Population: 6000
Phased Project?: Yes
Phase Number: 2
Phase Count: 5
Phase Years: 3
County/Tribe: Grant County
County Contact: Terry Brewer
County Priority: 0
Applicant: City of Soap Lake
Applicant Contact: Jean Waller
Applicant Phone: (509)246-1211
Applicant Email: jhein@grantedc.com
Contact:
Notes:
Total Project Cost: $25,000,000.00
Raised to Date: $50,000.00
Requested: $850,000.00
Dollars: $0
Program:
Source:
Department:
Agency:
State District:
Federal District:
Jobs Created in
1-3 Years: 10
Jobs Created in
3-5 Years: 50
Jobs Retained: 100
Outcomes: Traffic accessments, accounting of City revenue, real estate sales, consumption of utilities and other resources, Business and Occupation taxes, permits and fees, etc.
Economic Diversification Strategy: The project satisfies, in a singlular structure, the extreme need to create economic re-development and re-vitalization of Soap Lake, through the attraction of tourists. It is a project which will be the catalyst for other business investment and redevelopment efforts by others who will benefit from the influx of tourist dollars.
Planning Efforts: Project complies with regional planning components of the eco-tourism issues outlined in the Ephrata-Soap Lake Economic Plan, the Grant County Comprehensive Plan, and the Cultural Corridor Planning in progress.
Engineering Reports and Feasibility Studies: No engineering or feasibility studies have been prepared. This is the next step necessary for development of the project.
Secured Funds: No
Other Efforts: We prepared design documentation including photo/illustrations of the project, developed a web site at www.giantlavalamp.com and gained local, national and international publicity for the project, through all media sources including radio,television, newspapers and the internet.
Local Infrastructure Improvements: The project will draw tourist dollars, and other business investment into the community. The added revenue from tourism and B&O taxes and other fees will provide the resources for improvement of local infrastructure and it capacity to meet the needs of the anticipated growth and revitalization of the community.
Compliance with EPA/DOE: N/A
Other Factors: No
Posted by: George at November 17, 2002 03:56 PM
$25 MILLION DOLLAR -- CTED SCOPER STOPS THE CLOCK ON SL PROJECT
#1. Why is a scoper in the picture on this at this point? There is no application CTED and OTED can consider. The proponents, are not the applicants. Why is a scoper dealing with the "proponents" who have no standing? The application was submitted fraudulently without the City of Soap Lake’s authorization or sponsorship.
#2. Why has the CTED and OTED left this matter up to a "verbal" recommendation by a scoper? Are there any communications in writing? If not, how is that possible? If yes, copies disclosing who wrote them and to whom ought to be made public. What communications has CTED and OTED had with the applicants – the City of Soap Lake?
#3. The proponents are not the applicant. Why are CTED and OTED still communicating with the proponents? They are "private developers" not eligible or qualified to author or submit the application, especially for the City of Soap Lake. Why a recommendation to the proponents to postpone the meeting in order to spend some time "expanding" on what it is they would like to accomplish at such a meeting? Why not return the application to the City of Soap Lake, who on the application claims to be the applicant, stating "Not eligible for funding," and discontinue all communications with the private developers, who were not authorized to submit the application for the City of Soap Lake under false pretenses?
#4. Why is it left to a scoper's suggestion to the proponents that they might want to bring in a professional facilitator to assist them in developing an outline for a public meeting, develop an organizational structure and determine the project lead." Why suggest this, period – to private investors? Why not just reject and return the application back to the City of Soap Lake and have NO FURTHER COMMUNICATION with them? Was it even "legal" for the private developers to fraudulently submit the application to mislead CTED and OTED into thinking the City of Soap Lake had actually submitted it?
The City of Soap Lake is the only agency that may have any role in this, and that is where the responsibility ought be placed. The City of Soap Lake can't do anything without council discussion, public hearings, etc. The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) entitle taxpayers to request records and documents which may exist such as phone calls, written notes, e-mail which were likely exchanged with the private developers. A copy of these ought to be made public without a FOIA request in the interest of time.
#5. CTED feels that the community of Soap Lake and the project proponents need to reach agreement. It is the City of Soap Lake, which needs to reach agreement with the Soap Lake Community. The private developers committed FRAUD. Why include the private developers in this, especially after their irresponsible actions?
#6. CTED feels the issues and concerns about the Lava Lamp project need to be directed to the local elected officials and others in a position to affect the outcome. The elected officials are the only ones that MIGHT have a role, but -- the City of Soap Lake had no role in the application. The private developers acted fraudulently without authorization to act as they did. The private developers are illegitimate, and have NO standing in an application. It would be inappropriate to (a) approach the elected officials who did not apply, or (B) the proponents who have no standing. If the scoper would have RETURNED the application back to the private developers from the get-go, this would never have drawn headlines around the state, and elsewhere. The private developers illegally misrepresented themselves as AGENTS of the City of Soap Lake, and the application was never questioned because of the private agents’ fraudulent claims.
#7. CTED feels their course of action responds to the issues raised. Until a clarification to these points is made public by CTED or OTED, these issues and points will remain open, unresolved, and require timely closure.
Posted by: Gao at November 24, 2002 01:14 PM
|
