Replies to post #50064 on SunWorks Inc (SUNWQ)

[buckylaw06]

I disagree. If it was merely put on the agenda for tracking/record-keeping reasons, then it would have been on the previous agenda as well; it was not. If it was in fact removed from the agenda as SLTD reported in the newsletter to us, then it was a last-minute thing and apparently was not updated on the agenda document. Unfortunately Fresno screwed up their video feed yesterday and there was no volume. So, we don't know if they so much as mentioned the MDE contract. Also, it's my understanding that the matter is listed in the "contested consent" area of the agenda because it requires an individual vote to authorize the budgetary change.
However, I agree that poster should have simply asked where TJS got the delay info from, rather than accusing him of making it up. It is a bit odd that they did a newsletter but no PR. However, it really isn't a big deal. The job has never been included in the company's revenue estimates, so it has never been anything more than a potential job. They don't PR any other jobs before they're closed, this simply came out because it was public record.

As to the agenda. We are shown under CONTESTED. That means someone questioned the item. The reason it is showing on the agenda isbfor record keeping purposes. This is common in all goverment agendas. It does NOT mean itbwill be discussed at this meeting. Attacking TJS is not a smart move.