Okay, well I did the math on 15 officials, and I think, if they had an average salary of $100,000 a year, which is not a crazy assumption given the rank of folks who are waiting, and you divide that by a 2,000-hour work year, you get to about $50 an hour. You add it all up, and I think their time here today for two hours is worth about $1,500, and they continue to wait.
I'm interested in hearing what other amendments are on offer. As I said, I think for today I would encourage both larger parties at the table to find a way to figure out if we can resolve this, without folks waiting on the line, in a way that is mutually agreeable. I think doing it by vote here is not the best way, because there's clearly discussion that needs to happen in order for us to be able to find a good path forward.
I was pleased to hear that I think the first amendment on offer seems to be offered in good faith. It's quite germane to the motion that's been moved. It's not a motion that seeks to.... You know, sometimes, when other parties seek to amend motions, they use what we might call a “gutting” amendment. I don't see any gutting here. What I see is a good faith attempt to try to engage on the substantive issues in the motion, including some sincere offers of support for at least the principle behind the motion. I think that's a good sign of where conversations are.
I know we did have a suspension of the meeting to create time for conversations to happen, but, obviously, we didn't get to the result that we might like.
I'm thinking about ways that we could create time for the relevant parties to have an extended conversation so we might find some kind of mutually agreeable outcome, but I'm at a loss, given that we've already had a suspension, for ideas as to how to create time for people to have that conversation.
I think about the motion and what's in the motion and, that already being a matter of record, I'm happy to end my remarks there.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.