Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-01-09 Board of Ethics Minutes Regular SessionHAWAII COUNTY BOARD OF ETHICS MINUTES — REGULAR SESSION Wednesday, January 9, 2008 - 10:00 a.m. 101 Aupuni Street, Suite 230 (Conference Room) Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Present: Wayne Joseph, Chair Ann Lum, Vice Chair John Dill, Member Tricia Malanka, Member Marilyn Nicholson, Member Lincoln S. T. Ashida, Corporation Counsel (counsel for the Board) Mary E. Crosson (secretary for the Board) Also present at various times: Hunter Bishop, Jason Armstrong, Kenneth Goodenow, Levi Hookano, Gwen Kupahu, Katherine Garson, Martha Rodillas, and other unknown parties. 1. CALL TO ORDER The Chair called the meeting to order at 10:00 a.m. 2. STATEMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC ON AGENDA ITEMS No one testified from the public. , 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion and vote: Ms. Nicholson moved to approve the December 12, 2007, Regular Session minutes. Ms. Malanka seconded the motion, and all members voted aye. Motion and vote: Ms. Malanka moved to approve the December 12, 2007, Executive Session minutes. Ms. Nicholson seconded the motion, and all members voted aye. 4. COMMUNICATIONS The Board's Informal Advisory Opinion that incumbents using County funds for mail -outs within six months of an election may constitute an unfair advantage as defined by Section 2 -83 of the Ethics Code. CHAIR: Mr. Ashida, does Item No. 4, Communications, refer to the draft that we have? ASHIDA: Yes, I —Mary, did you hand out the draft this morning? I prepared a draft informal advisory at the request of the commission, or the Board, last time. When we met last month, the Board had indicated that you wanted to proceed with an informal advisory concerning the mail -outs within the six - month —or that an interpretation of the Board of the current Code of Ethics could be that the mail -outs would be prohibited in a six -month period of time. Yesterday at the Council committee meetings, as you may have read in the newspaper, the ordinance amending the Code pertaining to fines —that passed out of Committee yesterday favorably. The representation made by Mr. Hoffmann yesterday was that a similar bill that he is working on concerning the mail -outs will probably hit the committee later this month in January. Mr. Hookano, is that correct? HOOKANO: Yes, that's correct. ASHIDA: So that being said, these are your options. You could take a look at this draft and proceed with issuing an informal advisory concerning the existing Code, but that's really not advisable at this point, because if the Council is going to go in and actually amend the ordinance —the Code of Ethics —we're going to have new law on it anyway. So this —what I've drafted up may in that event technically be moot or not applicable. So you know, it's up to you how you want to proceed, but at this point I would just wait to see what the Council does. The second committee meetings is this month —I think they're on January 23rd. It's a very notable date in history, by the way. And I would wait to see what they do. You know, you could defer this until next month to see what the Council does, or you can talk about the draft today. It's up to you. CHAIR: With all due respect, I believe that at our last meeting we did issue an informal advisory opinion based on this, and it carried by a majority vote. And we were supposed to have the final communication signed, and are you asking us now to reconsider? ASHIDA: No. I'm saying it's up to you. But all I'm saying is, after January 23rd of this month, and then assume that there are changes made to the Code at the committee meeting on the 23r`' then it will proceed to the full Council's first meeting in February. . And if the Mayor then signs it into law, it changes —this may become moot, because the language of the underlying ordinance will change. CHAIR: I personally would like to just go ahead and move forward with what we have and see what the County Council does in the future. And I think that's what we voted on in our last meeting to begin with. So- ASHIDA: - -That was made at the time, though, that it was not clear whether the Council would move forward with the second of the two initiatives, because I think —Mr. Hookano, you correct me if I'm wrong —but back then, you said that the $500 fine payment would move forward, but at that point not yet the second bill concerning the mail -outs (inaudible). HOOKANO: Well, it was just would depend on their —the drafting and the language, as long as it goes through, you know, the (inaudible) it would go up to committee any way. But just the time line wasn't exactly set. 2 ASHIDA: It's up to you. Like I said, it's up to you. If you're saying it was voted on back then and what you want to is just sign off on this, that's fine. But all I'm saying is that in a couple months it might be mooted out. CHAIR: And I think that would be fine, too. So let's just proceed as to where we were at last month and- LUM: -- Excuse me, Wayne. Did we vote to—we voted on the informal advisory. CHAIR: Yes, we did. And we all voted in favor of it. LUM: So if we go ahead with this, then we could deal with the County when it— CHAIR: -- That's right- LUM: - -the change, whatever they decide. CHAIR: That's right. LUM: Right. We can't really second -guess them. CHAIR: I agree. So Mr. Ashida, could you prepare that for signature? ASHIDA: Sure, I'll just take off the "draft. " Do you have some time today to take a look at the language that —it's basically, essentially, the same as my December 6 letter. So if you're all okay with it, I'll take out the watermark "draft" and route it to you for signature. I did take out the language that Mr. Dill had suggested--you remember he wanted that phrase, "irrespective of content, " taken out, so I did that. Also know that because this is —I called it an "informal advisory. " It is not an informal advisory opinion as contemplated by our rules, because we never went through that process, right, because a petition wasn't filed. This was something that sua sponte —the Board did on its own— CHAIR: -- That's correct. That's correct ASHIDA: - -So just to be clear, in the event in the future there is a petition filed on this particular issue, the Board would need to consider that complaint upon the facts given the facts —on the facts of that particular complaint. CHAIR: That was the intention of this- ASHIDA: -- right— CHAIR: -- that's correct. ASHIDA: This is just for guidance. 3 CHAIR: That's correct. Okay, that's correct. I don't think we need to do anything about that until it's prepared for signature and then —and then we'll put it on the agenda again next month as Communications. Okay, thank you. Item number S, New Business. 5. NEW BUSINESS Board - initiated inquiry and possible investigation /hearing regarding whether it is a violation of the Code of Ethics for Council members to use County funds to pay for newspaper advertisements. The Board will consider a formal resolution, pursuant to Rule 5.2 of the Rules of Practice and Procedure of the Board of Ethics, to determine whether an investigation shall be conducted and a hearing held concerning an alleged violation of the Code of Ethics by various Council members in using County funds to pay for newspaper advertisements. If the resolution is passed, the Board may investigate the matter and hold a hearing immediately thereafter, or may schedule a hearing for a future meeting date. The Board may also consider issuing an informal advisory opinion concerning this matter. (Includes Communication Nos. 2007 -131, 2007 -132, and 2007 -133, letters from Lincoln Ashida, Corporation Counsel, on the issue, and Communication No. 2007- 130, from Emily Nae`ole.) CHAIR: I don't know if Mr. Ashida would like to start and give background, or if I should start and give background on this. ASHIDA: You can, Mr. Chairman. Go ahead. CHAIR: Okay. What happened was that on Christmas Eve I was reading the Tribune- Herald, and I noticed an ad in the newspaper that you have before you from Emily Nae `ole, which wished people safe driving and happy holidays. And I was curious as to who paid for that ad, so I asked Corporation Counsel. And on December 26`h they informed me that the County had paid for it through a credit card. And I asked Mr. Ashida to put this under New Business and see if the Board wanted to start a Board - initiated inquiry into the possible investigation of whether or not this was a violation of the Code of Ethics. Subsequently, Ms. Nae `ole came up with the money to pay for the ad herself, and the next day, December 27`h, we were informed that — through a letter — through Mr. Ashida —that she had paid for it with her own money and asked that her name be removed from the agenda. And I think her last sentence in her letter, and all of you should have her letter, was that she asked the Board to clarify whether or not using a photo in County paid ads was appropriate. And I thought it was a good idea and long overdue that the Board come up with a decision based on her request. And I asked Mr. Ashida to add that to the agenda. And that's where we're at today. And so I guess what I'm asking the Board today is just to initiate the beginnings and come up with a motion to see if there's any violation of the Code of Ethics for Council members who use County funds to pay for newspaper advertisements in which their photo is. And what we would need is a motion from a Board member to initiate this process and a second, and we'll have a discussion on this. MALANKA: I move that we proceed with discussion on the aforementioned business. 0 CHAIR: Well, I think we need a motion specifically to this before we can begin discussions. I mean, we can discuss this before that motion is made, but the appropriate way would be to make a motion that we have a Board - initiated inquiry into a possible investigation regarding whether it's a violation of the Code of Ethics for Council members to use County funds to pay for newspaper advertisements under Rule 5.2 of Rules of Practices and Procedures of the Board of Ethics. MALANKA: I so move. CHAIR: Thank you. Thank you. We need a second. DILL: Second. CHAIR: All right, now we're open for discussion. Mr. Ashida? ASHIDA: Can I ask a question? Are you —are you resolving under Rule 5 to conduct an investigation into past actions of particular Council members, or are you doing as suggested —that this be a prospective advisory opinion for the County? CHAIR: Yes. The second portion— DILL: - -Yeah, I want to clarify if this is a situation specific or general. CHAIR: I know this is a very delicate topic, and I think it would be in the Board's best interest to initiate an inquiry into this matter, just to give an advisory opinion so that —so that everyone could properly understand what the rules are. So no, it's not a past investigation. Now we're open for discussion. And if there's no discussion- MALANKA: When is the next election? CHAIR: In September. MALANKA: In September. CHAIR: Yes. MALANKA: So March would be the cut -off date for the six months. CHAIR: You're talking about another item- MALANKA: -- That's the other issue. CHAIR: Yeah, that's the other issue. MALANKA: Okay, this is just in terms of County funds to pay for newspaper advertising, period. CHAIR: We would like to clarify whether photos of Council members should be included in announcements made by the County and paid by the County. NICHOLSON: And this is irrespective of the content of the ad, and irrespective of whether they are a candidate or not? CHAIR: Well, that's going to be open for discussion, and that topic would be brought up once we initiate an inquiry into this matter. LUM: I see the first issue as being —is a photo —does a photo — constitute some sort of personal promotion. DILL: Mr. Chair, are we going to move on? Because I think —how much discussion are we going to have before we go on— CHAIR: - -We don't want to discuss the issue. We just want to discuss whether or not it's appropriate for us— DILL: --for us to move on— CHAIR: - -to petition and begin an inquiry into this. LUM: Into whether it's —we're just initiating an inquiry. CHAIR: That's right. DILL: And will that inquiry be done today, or start today? LUM: Okay. Okay. Sorry. ASHIDA: Yes or no? CHAIR: No. LUM: Okay, I'm sorry. I was a little confused about what motion we're acting on here. CHAIR: Okay. ASHIDA: Let me clarify the motion. The motion as 1 understand it is under Rule S. Rule S of your rules is virtually the only mechanism in which the Board can initiate an investigation into any matter. That requires a resolution by a majority of this Board, which means three out of five people must vote affirmatively to resolve (inaudible) a formal written resolution. We've done this in the past, that this is exactly the issue that you will be looking at, and you need to set forth in that resolution the specific sections of the Code that you'll be looking at and the specific questions that you will be asking. So to the extent that you know, yes we need to pass —if you're going to move in this rel direction, you need to pass it, but you also need to provide me some guidance as to what are the specific questions that you're asking. CHAIR: At this time, it would be- ASHIDA: - -So right now you need to decide. Is this is something you want to look at, yes or no? CHAIR: Yes. ASHIDA: So that's all you vote on. Then if it's yea, and we're going to look at it, then I need you need to clarify for me what to put in the resolution. DILL: I have no further discussion. CHAIR: Okay. Are we ready for the question? Okay, we have a motion and a second on the floor to initiate a Board inquiry--a possible investigation hearing — regarding whether or not it's a violation of the Code of Ethics for Council members to use County funds to pay for newspaper advertisements in which their photograph is included, and pursuant to Rule 5.2 of the Rules of Practices and Procedures of the Board of Ethics. If you are in favor of that motion, signify by saying aye. DILL: Aye. LUM, MALANKA, NICHOLSON (simultaneously): Aye. CHAIR: Opposed? Hearing none, the motion carries. At this point, I know we received a letter from Mr. Yagong, asking that this matter be postponed to a later date that's convenient, and there have been other people that have made similar requests. So before we give you direction, Mr. Ashida, on where we want to head on this, has a date been picked? I notice we are scheduled to meet on February 13th. Does the County Council meet on February 13th ASHIDA: No. CHAIR: And would February 13th be the best possible date in which anyone interested may present testimony before the Board? ASHIDA: I think that'll be fine. CHAIR: Okay, so we can leave it at that. I think for clarification, where we're headed in this, is that we just want to clarify whether or not it's appropriate for elected officials to use their photographs in advertisements in which they are advertising a County meeting, town hall meeting, and whether or not those photographs may constitute an unfair advantage. DILL: Using County funds. 7 CHAIR: By using County funds, right. I don't think we have any problems with them using their photographs if they are paying for it with their —with their campaign spending funds. Is that how you see it also, Mr. Ashida? ASHIDA: It's you know, there's a —we need to talk about this thoroughly on, what is it, the thirteenth, February 13`x', because there's a State statute that the legislature recently passed last session that prohibits any elected officer in our state from using his or her photograph in public service announcements for any purpose, but it's limited to a period of time between from the time that they file for elected office until such time after the election. I forget the exact time. So if you're going to embark on this path, which you've chosen to do, I would suggest you hear as much input as possible from all those who are concerned, and also you consider what — obviously take into account what state laws says and what other ethics commissions around our state —the State Ethics Commission, and the various county, city and county commissions, have said on the issue, because that would be important to your decision. I want to make sure you just get as much information as possible. Try to not have any —leave your you need to really look at this with an open mind and any predispositions you have would need to be left out of the picture. DILL: Is there a way that your office could provide some of the literature - ASHIDA: - -Yeah, what I plan to do is do a write -up for you prior to the 13`h, to let you know what the state of the law is out there so you can come to an informed decision. DILL: Thanks. CHAIR: I did, Mr. Ashida, have a short list of requests. ASHIDA: Sure. CHAIR: I noticed in some of the correspondence that there was reference made to a 1988 Honolulu, City and County —could we see the entire formal opinion? I'd also like to see what the State Ethics has ruled on this, and whether or not any state legislators have used photos. I'd like to—I'd like to see, statistically over the last five years, whether or not any council people have used their photos in ads, in not just our County but the other three counties as well. And so—as much information as you can provide us so that we can make an unbiased opinion on this would be very helpful in this matter. So that's the Chair's request. Any other requests? NICHOLSON: I just have a question. So this —what we're discussing is only going to apply to County Council members and not just anyone else who runs for -- CHAIR: - -Any elected —any elected official. NICHOLSON: Okay, I wanted to make it clear that it would pertain to any elected official. CHAIR: But I believe outside of the nine County Council members, we only have two other elected officials. ASHIDA: The Prosecutor and the Mayor. CHAIR: So we're only talking about the nine members of the County Council and the Mayor and the Prosecutor. NICHOLSON: Okay, thank you. CHAIR: Any other requests? Any other —can we get a motion to investigate this matter on February 13th and put this on agenda —can we put it as a New Business item? ASHIDA: Sure. CHAIR: Okay. ASHIDA: I think you already voted on it. NICHOLSON: We did- LLTM: - -Yes, we voted. We didn't vote on the date, though. CHAIR: Not on the date, not in —not in officially having this on the February 13th LUM: I move that we place this on the February 13th agenda. NICHOLSON: I second. CHAIR: Any discussion? All in favor, signify by saying aye. DILL, LUM, MALANKA, NICHOLSON (simultaneously): Aye. CHAIR: Aye. Opposed? Hearing none, the motion carries. With that said, we're going to move on to Unfinished Business. 6. UNFINISHED BUSINESS a. Report on status of Ethics Guide for Hawaii County Officers and Employees booklet. Mr. Ashida reported that he got the preliminary okay from the County Clerk about printing the booklet through that office, and the Clerk suggested he contact Margaret Lucas of the Machine Room directly. He asked the Board members if they would be willing to transfer a few hundred from the Board's account to the Clerk's budget to help in the printing costs. E Motion and vote: Ms. Nicholson moved to approve spending funds from the Board of Ethics budget to print the Ethics Guide for Hawai `i County Officers and Employees, providing there is at least a thousand dollars remaining in the budget and the expenditure does not exceed $500. Ms. Malanka seconded the motion, and all members voted aye. b. Report on status of Board's request for a time limit for incumbents who are seeking reelection in an election year on sending campaign literature using County funds. The Chair asked Levi Hookano, who was present, if he wanted to address this issue. Mr. Hookano reported that the mail -outs issue should be heard at the next committee meeting later this month, on January 23, 2008. Mr. Ashida told the Board he would report back on the matter after that meeting. C. Report on status of Board's request for authority from the Council to fine officials and employees who violate the Code of Ethics. The Chair stated that the newspaper reported that the bill on this matter just passed at committee level yesterday, and Mr. Ashida said the committee had authorized up to a $1,000 fine. Mr. Ashida clarified that Councilmember Brenda Ford had voted against the bill because she was concerned about the need for criteria in the handing out of fines. She would like to see the establishment of such criteria, including how the Board will decide who gets fined and what the amount will be. He checked with the State Ethics Commission, which also has the authority to fine, but it has not fined anyone so far. If the bill passes the Council, the Board will need to go back to its rules and establish that criteria. Mr. Ashida explained that since the bill passed 8 to 1 yesterday, it will now proceed to the full Council for reading, presumably on January 24, 2008. It will go on the agenda as a bill for first reading, and there will be opportunity for discussion. He said that Ms. Ford was also concerned that no member of the Board of Ethics was present yesterday on the matter. Mr. Ashida said he assumes the bill will pass its first reading at Council on January 24, 2008, as it did not seem contentious. From the tone and content of the majority of the members at yesterday's committee meeting, they seemed to feel it was a good idea. This, however, could always change. If it passes on the 24th, it will go on to a second Council reading in February. After it passes the second reading, Council staff will transfer the bill to the Mayor, who has ten days to sign off on it, do nothing, or veto it. If the Mayor does nothing, the bill becomes law in ten days. Mr. Ashida said he will let the Mayor know the bill is coming down the pike. All things being equal and the bill passing, it may become law by mid to late February. Mr. Ashida said the Board is fully within its rights to move ahead on the informal advisory for the mail -outs issue, but there is a delicate political balance to be sensitive to. If the Council does not like the Board's opinion, they could change the underlying law. He 10 encouraged everyone to work together, see what the Council has to say, and work harmoniously with them. The Chair asked Kenneth Goodenow, the Deputy County Clerk, if he had anything to add. Mr. Goodenow said that Ms. Ford was concerned about safeguards for due process. He strongly encouraged the Board to attend the next Council meeting to provide input. He said the Council members would appreciate that. The Chair said the problem is in not knowing what time the matter would actually come up on the agenda, and Mr. Ashida confirmed that even though it may be scheduled for the morning, it might not be heard until the late afternoon. Mr. Goodenow said that a Board member does not have to be present, but he would strongly encourage someone to be there, to provide more insight for the Council members and explain the Board's thinking behind the bill. Mr. Ashida said he would get information on a recent amendment to State law which prohibits candidates' photographs in political ads which are paid for with state, county, or federal funds, from the time a candidate files for office to one day after the election. A candidate could legally wait until the deadline to file and continue to have his picture in the paper until then. The Chair said he would like to understand what determines the official date that a candidate is running for office. Some candidates have announced they are running for office, but the paperwork to file is not available until a much later date. Mr. Ashida said that with the Campaign Spending Commission, the official date a candidate is running is at the time of announcement. Katherine Garson, a deputy corporation counsel present, said that the official date with the Campaign Spending Commission is at the time of announcement or when a contribution of over a hundred dollars is accepted. Mr. Ashida said it is complicated, as different agencies have different rules. The Campaign Spending Commission has rules, and the State Ethics Commission also has rules. He said that Levi Hookano found a great opinion that brought him closer to the center. The Chair asked Mr. Hookano when he discovered that opinion, and Mr. Hookano said about four days ago. The Chair said he would like to be able to read it. The Chair moved the meeting on to agenda item d. d. Further review and discussion on the Rules of Practice and Procedure of the Board of Ethics. The Chair noted that this matter was discussed and voted on at the last meeting. Mr. Ashida explained that the Board needs to notice a public hearing under Chapter 91 of the Hawaii Revised Statutes. The notice needs to be printed in the paper at least 30 days prior to the meeting, which would be hard to accomplish by the Board's next meeting on February 13, 2008. 11 The Chair instructed that it be placed on the Board's March agenda, as the February agenda is full. Mr. Ashida asked if the Board wanted to put together something in the announcement about the authority to issue fines, but the Chair said he wanted to wait until the Council passes the bill. Mr. Dill and Ms. Lum asked if the administrative fines issue should be continued on the March agenda, but the Chair said it need not be on the agenda and that he could just be reminded of the issue. e. Ongoing discussion on the Sunshine Law. Mr. Ashida said he had nothing new on the Sunshine Law to report. Ms. Lum said she had a question, prompted by a December article in West Hawai `i Today, that there is a new law having to do with the electronic filing of campaign reports. The law also "establishes a reporting deadline, as well as redefines contribution and expenditure to exclude an individual or committee engaging in online activities for an election." She wanted to know if that meant anything done online does not come under the rules. Mr. Ashida said he was not familiar with the law and could find out and report back. Mr. Dill said he needed clarification on the conflict -of- interest issue and what constitutes a conflict. He asked whether he would need to excuse himself from participating in a Board matter involving Councilmember Dominic Yagong, since Mr. Yagong nominated him for the Board and lives in the same district. Mr. Ashida said that Mr. Dill did not need to excuse himself unless he felt he could not be fair and objective. However, the situation would present a conflict for Mr. Ashida, because he represents Mr. Yagong and the Council, so special counsel would need to represent the Board. He said trying to work harmoniously in the County is the ticket. If things become adversarial, attorneys would need to make hard decisions, and matters would become expensive and cumbersome. Mr. Dill asked about whether State law overrides County law, and Mr. Ashida said it depends on the situation. Under the U.S. Constitution, all federal law is superior. The state law is generally superior and supersedes county law with the exception of items that fall within the Home Rule doctrine, wherein the State specifically delegates to the counties certain areas to make their own laws. Laws that come under the Home Rule doctrine are customarily germane only to a county, and the state should not interfere. Mr. Dill asked whether being from someone's district constitutes a conflict, and the Chair said in itself that would not be a conflict. If he contributed to Mr. Yagong's campaign, the situation might be different. If Mr. Yagong testifies at the February 13 meeting, however, it would be wise for Mr. Dill just to disclose that he lives in that district. It is just good to be open and let the public know. 12 Mr. Goodenow announced that he had just called the Campaign Spending Commission, which informed him there are three things that initiate having to report to them: the filing of nomination papers, receiving at least a $100 contribution, or spending $100 or more for the purpose of being elected. The Chair said he appreciated the information and announced a five- minute recess. Recess was taken from 10:50 a.m. to 10:55 a.m., at which time the Chair called the meeting back to order. Motion and vote: Ms. Lum moved to enter into Executive Session, Ms. Nicholson seconded the motion, and all members voted aye. Executive Session was entered at 10:55 a.m. 7. EXECUTIVE SESSION Review of Confidential Financial Disclosure Forms filed pursuant to Section 2- 91.1(d), Hawaii County Code, by County board and commission members, where personal matters will be reviewed: Name Board or Commission Takashi Domingo (re- review) Planning Commission Wayne Joseph Board of Ethics Sean Oda Pension Board Shelly Ogata Planning Commission David Omura Pension Board Paulette Pavao (re- review) Environmental Management Commission Emma Yoshiko Sousa Pension Board Michael Sumja Police Commission Regular Session was re- entered at 11:06 a.m. The Chair read off the names of the disclosures being reviewed and said that the Board was returning Mr. Omura's disclosure because Item 5 was left blank, Ms. Sousa's disclosure because she left Items 6, 7, 8, and 9 blank, and Mr. Sumja's disclosure because he did not fill in the date he filed the form. Motion and vote: Ms. Malanka moved to approve the other five disclosures as named, Mr. Dill seconded the motion, and all members voted aye. 8. ANNOUNCEMENT The Chair asked if there were any other announcements. There being none, he read off the next meeting of the Board of Ethics as being on February 13, 2008, at 10:00 a.m. at the Department of Liquor Control's conference room at 101 Aupuni Street, Suite 230, Hilo. 13 Mr. Dill apologized for being late, explaining that he has a regular meeting at 9:00 a.m. each time the Board is scheduled to meet. He tries to make it on time but is not always able to. He confirmed that he will be present at the February 13 meeting, but may be a little late. Ms. Malanka said it may be feasible to change the location of the February 13 meeting, based on the attendance at today's meeting, and the Chair instructed the secretary to check into reserving a larger conference room. 9. ADJOURNMENT Motion and vote: Ms. Malanka moved to adjourn the meeting, Mr. Dill seconded the motion, and all members voted aye. The meeting adjourned at 11:10 a.m. Respectfully submitted: Mary E. CrUsson, Secretary 14