The fourth meeting of the University Senate and Faculty Senate was convened in 25 Mondale Hall, Minneapolis campus, on Thursday, April 6, 2006, at 2:35 p.m., as a joint meeting of the bodies. Coordinate campuses were linked by telephone. Checking or signing the roll as present were 21 academic professional members, 21 civil service members, 88 voting faculty/faculty-like academic professional members, and 15 voting student members. President Bruininks presided.

1. TRIBUTE TO DECEASED MEMBERS OF THE UNIVERSITY COMMUNITY

FACULTY/ACADEMIC PROFESSIONALS/STAFF

Maxine Clapp
Associate Professor
Walter Library
1921 – 2006

Heinrich Fleischer
Professor
Music
1912 – 2006

George W. Greenless
Professor
Physics
1923 – 2006

Robert L. Howard
Research Associate Professor
Physics
1920 – 2006

Javier Silva-Biotti
Consultant
Human Resources
1962 – 2006

STUDENTS

Nathan J. Theis
College of Liberal Arts


2. CLERK OF THE SENATE REPORT
Faculty Consultative Committee Election Results
Information for the Faculty Senate

FOR INFORMATION:

In the recent election to fill vacancies on the Faculty Consultative Committee, Professors Durfee, Hoover, and Rhodus were elected to three-year terms (July 1, 2006 through June 30, 2009). The members of the Faculty Consultative Committee for 2006-07 will be:

Gary Balas, Institute of Technology
Nancy Carpenter, University of Minnesota - Morris
Carol Chomsky, Law School
William Durfee, Institute of Technology
Megan Gunnar, College of Education and Human Development
Emily Hoover, College of Agricultural, Food, and Environmental Sciences
Scott Lanyon, College of Biological Sciences
Nelson Rhodus, School of Dentistry
John L. Sullivan, College of Liberal Arts
Jennifer Windsor, College of Liberal Arts

The members of the Disabilities Issues Committee along with representatives from the Disabled Student Cultural Center are concerned that the views regarding people with disabilities as expressed by Peter Singer, a guest lecturer to the University campus on March 23, 2006, create a hostile environment for people with disabilities where an individual’s “value” is determined by subjective norms of physical or cognitive abilities. While we believe his views to be exclusionary, bigoted, and threatening, we welcome the opportunity to engage in a discussion about the vital role of all members of our community.

Our larger concern is that the University of Minnesota does not have a Disability Studies Program that directly supports faculty research in this field or provides students with an opportunity for learning about this important subject. We find it difficult to fully engage Singer’s views in an intellectually rigorous and sustained form without the support of a Disability Studies Program.

Members of our committee along with faculty, staff, and students from all colleges across campus have been discussing the implementation of a Disability Studies Program for some years, particularly during this past year. The President's Office funded five disability-related conferences in 2004-2005 through the President's 21st Century Interdisciplinary Conferences. These conferences have strengthened interdisciplinary dialogue and collaboration among faculty and staff in the area of disability. This effort, combined with a cross-college group of faculty and staff now working on establishing a Disability Studies Program, has led to the successful application for support from the Advanced Studies Institute to further this work in 2006-2007. We are grateful for this support.

In order to facilitate the implementation of a Disability Studies Program, the Disability Issues Committee requests the following:

Resolution passed by the Disabilities Issues Committee, March 24, 2006

Professor Jean Bauer, Chair of the Senate and Faculty Consultative Committees (SCC/FCC), said that the FCC has reviewed the work of the Social Concerns Committee, met with representatives from the administration and Regents, reviewed the strategic positioning task force reports, discussed faculty culture and metrics for its measurement, and received input from the Equity, Access, and Diversity Committee.

On March 27 a special FCC meeting was called to discuss the UMore Park stadium proposal with President Bruininks, Vice President Richard Pfutzenreuter, and Director Charles Musoplat. There was unanimous consent from members present for the following statement to represent the sense of the meeting:

The FCC welcomes the new proposal for exchanging part of UMore Park in return for support for the football stadium.  

The FCC believes that this step will help preserve environmentally sensitive areas of UMore Park for research and for public use and will help limit increases in student fees.  

The FCC reaffirms its support for the University's request for capital funding in this biennium and for long-term capital funding for biosciences.

FCC has also been discussing classifications eligible for involvement in the Faculty Senate. A proposal to add clinical faculty is on the agenda for today’s meeting and K contract faculty will also be discussed.

Lastly, Professor Bauer thanked everyone for their service in the Senate and its committees this year.

Professor Jean Bauer, Chair of the Senate Consultative Committee (SCC), introduced John Finnegan Jr., Dean of the School of Public Health.

MOTION:

To approve the University Senate and Faculty Senate minutes, which are available on the Web at the following URL. A simple majority is required for approval.

http://www1.umn.edu/usenate/usen/051201sen.html
http://www1.umn.edu/usenate/usen/060302sen.html

DISCUSSION:

With no discussion, a vote was taken and the motion was approved.

MOTION:

To approve the following statement.

Statement on the Regents Policy on Investments Social Concerns

Part A:

The Social Concerns Committee requests that the Board of Regents replace their policy outlining the investment responsibilities of the Social Concerns Committee in favor of one delegating these responsibilities to the President of the University.

Part B:

The University Senate requests that the President prepare an administrative policy documenting how the social impacts of the University’s investment responsibilities will be addressed. It is expected that the Social Concerns Committee will be consulted in the preparation of this document.

COMMENT:

To our knowledge, the Social Concerns Committee is the only Senate committee that has a Board of Regents policy governing aspects of its charge. The Board of Regents Office has been working to streamline its policies by delegating administrative functions to the President who, in turn, delegates them to appropriate administrators working with Senate committees. Board policies provide the overall framework and direction for the administration of the University. For this reason, the Social Concerns Committee believes that the University investment policy should be consistent with other Regents policies delegating responsibility from the Regents to the President. The Social Concerns Committee responsibilities in the area of investments should be part of an administrative policy dealing with investments.

DISCUSSION:

With no discussion, a vote was taken and the motion was approved.

MOTION:

To approve the following resolution.

Resolution on a Vendor Code of Conduct

The Social Concerns Committee of the University of Minnesota recommends that the President establish, as an administrative policy, a written Code of Conduct for University vendors, incorporating priorities identified in the University’s existing Trademark Licensee Code of Conduct and existing relevant Board of Regents policies^. This Code of Conduct should be drafted in consultation with the Social Concerns Committee and other appropriate Senate committees.

COMMENT:

Although the University of Minnesota has adopted a code of conduct for licensees of University goods and apparel that identifies ethical priorities including:

it does not currently have a parallel code of conduct for University vendors. Specifying University values in such a policy would allow the University to influence vendors and act as a positive force for change in their corporate ethics. The Social Concerns Committee believes that the University of Michigan’s Vendor Code of Conduct serves as a practical model of both language and strategies for enforcement.

DISCUSSION:

Q: Sexual orientation is a protected classification by the University, but many other companies and the federal government do not consider it to be. Will this issue be explicitly part of what is developed?

A: The motion today does not propose particulars, but just asks that a Vendor Code of Conduct be created. This issue, however, should be discussed when the Code is developed.

A senator then spoke in favor of the motion, in relation to the University’s work on strategic positioning. While the University defines what it means to be an excellent public research University, discussions about serious ethical matters should be part of this process.

With no further discussion, a vote was taken and the motion was approved.

MOTION:

To amend Article II, Section 1 of the University Senate Rules as follows (language to be added is underlined). As an amendment to the University Senate Rules, the motion requires a simple majority for approval.

ARTICLE II. RULES FOR COMMITTEES OF THE UNIVERSITY SENATE (Changes to this article are subject to vote only by the University Senate)

1. Ex Officio Members of University Senate Committees

...

- All-University Honors--Office of the Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs and Provost; Office of the Vice President for University Relations (three representatives, including one from Alumni Relations and one from the University Development Office); Office of the Vice Chancellor for University Relations - Duluth; Office of University Relations - Crookston

...

COMMENT:

The work of the All-University Honors Committee is system wide. Because Crookston and Duluth faculty, (with the exception of the UMD Medical School faculty), are unionized, they are not eligible to serve on Senate committees. A representative from the Duluth Medical School serves on the Committee, but in 2004, the UMD Medical School began reporting to the Twin Cities Campus Medical School Dean, therefore, the All-University Honors Committee believes that it is important to include ex officio non-voting representatives from the Crookston and Duluth campuses. The Committee recommends representation from each campus’s University Relations Department.

DISCUSSION:

With no discussion, a vote was taken and the motion was approved.

MOTION:

To amend Article II, Section 5(B) of the University Senate Bylaws as follows (language to be added is underlined). As an amendment to the University Senate Bylaws, the motion requires either a majority of all voting members of the University Senate (127) at one regular or special meeting, or a majority of all members of the University Senate present and voting at each of two meetings. This is the first meeting at which this motion is being presented.

ARTICLE II. COMMITTEES OF THE UNIVERSITY SENATE (Changes to this article are subject to vote only by the University Senate)

...

5. University Senate Committee Charges

...

B. ALL-UNIVERSITY HONORS COMMITTEE

The All-University Honors Committee solicits and reviews nominations for all-University honors.

Membership

The All-University Honors Committee shall be composed of no more than 8 faculty members (including one from each coordinate campus, where appropriate), 2 academic professionals, 2 civil service staff members, 3 students, 5 alumni, and ex officio representation as specified by vote of the Senate. Faculty/academic professional and student members shall be nominated by the Committee on Committees and approved by the president. Alumni members shall be appointed by the president in consultation with the director of alumni relations.

...

COMMENT:

Currently, faculty, academic professionals, alumni, and students are represented on the All-University Honors Committee. With the addition of civil service representation in the Senate, the Committee believes that it would be appropriate to include them in its membership.

DISCUSSION:

With no discussion, a vote was taken and the motion was approved with 135 in favor and none opposed.

President Bruininks stated that he had the opportunity to deliver the State of the University Address from Morris this year. It was a wonderful occasion to meet with the community and a group of very able students the following morning.

On the topic of student education, he said that during his inaugural address he made the point that it was important in the life of the University to move from a focus on inputs to measures and actions that created results in the lives of students. He talked about the importance of reforming teaching, learning, assessment, emphasizing results, student retention, progress towards graduation, and student satisfaction with the University. He also mentioned the growing problems with access and affordability.

President Bruininks said that affordability is a personal priority of his since tuition has increased 70 percent in the last five years. This is a nation-wide trend, due to diminished federal and state support. In the early 1980s, state support was 8.3 percent of the state’s budget; it is now 3.8 percent.

He has established a student scholarship and fellowship fund raiser as the University’s top priority, and at the same time created the Promise for Tomorrow matching gift program. During the last seven year fund raising effort, the University committed itself to raising $50 million for student scholarships and fellowships. This was a challenging fund raising area, but the goal was reached.

Following this effort, it was determined that a matching gift program was needed. This program and the new drive has raised $120 million in just two and one half years, which is six times the normal fund raising rate. The money will provide 1000 more undergraduates from across the campuses with substantial scholarship support next year.

The goal is to raise $150 million, but it will be continued past that mark.

Another funding option is the Founder’s Opportunity Award, which was announced last year and was embellished this year to cover transfer students. Roughly 5000 students access this award as freshmen, which provides free tuition and fees for low-income students. Across the campuses, this award covers students whose family income is less than $26,500 per year. This award helps many first-generation students from very diverse cultural backgrounds.

The University is also making progress in Graduate School support. $5 million was invested in increases to block grants. New fellowships and increased salaries for TAs and RAs also puts significant money into the tuition benefit pool.

These opportunities, as well as the Iron Range Mining Scholarship Program, puts the University in a stronger position to compete and support students in the future. It is not acceptable to be close to the bottom in peer groups. These initiatives will move the University from the bottom into a respectable range.

The University is also in the middle of an ambitious effort to reshape the University and its future. It will be a long process and will take support from the state, the internal University community, and the private sector. The task forces are reporting back and the University is committed to periods of public comment and engagement. He noted that the Regents recently approved name changes for the newly-formed colleges.

Regarding the legislature, President Bruininks has attended nine hearings in two weeks to present the case for the University. The University has an ambitious agenda with a $206 million capital request. The Governor proposed $127 million, the House proposed $121 million, and the Senate proposed $152 million. This will now go to conference committee to make a final decision. The University is optimistic that it will be afforded the second-highest bonding bill in University history.

Additionally, the University has a supplemental request to cover Rochester expansion, an initiative from the Dental School, and a technology request from the College of Veterinary Medicine.

There are two other issues before the legislature. The first is a $300 million, 10-year biomedical sciences plan which includes upgrading laboratories and facilities, and building a few new buildings. The University is asking the state to make this investment in the University and the state’s economy. This item has had a spirited discussion and has allowed the University to talk about its unique research mission and contributions to human health.

Lastly is the University’s stadium proposal. President Bruininks had hoped that this issue would be part of a special session. That did not happen, so now it is part of the regular funding process. He noted that the current proposal includes providing UMore Park land to the state in return for increased funding. He stated that UMore Park is environmentally sensitive land that was always intended to be dedicated to public use. The University feels that this is an opportunity to work with the Department of Natural Resources to create a Hennepin Park of the future in an area that will be surrounded by development in the next five to ten years.

He stated that the last stadium amendment in the House Ways and Means Committee was meant to preclude the University from doing any embryonic stem cell research that was not from federally-approved lines. This amendment was defeated, but the University must constantly guard and defend ideals of academic freedom.

Professor Martin Sampson, a Faculty Legislative Liaison, said that this is a complex and interesting session this year, with a list of ten items that the Faculty Legislative Liaisons are watching. Today, he would like to provide clarity to the FCC and the Faculty Senate on what is happening.

There are three priorities this session: 1) bonding bill, 2) bio-medical facility funding, and 3) stadium. Information on the status of the bonding bill was distributed to all senators.

Professor Sampson said that Governor recommended $20 million less for MnSCU than the University for HEAPR funding. For the House’s proposal, they then took $10 million of HEAPR funding from the University and allocated it to MnSCU. There is also hope that if the separate bio-medical facility funding bill is approved, this will free up money for other projects in the bonding bill.

He then asked any faculty members who want to serve as liaisons to contact Professor Carol Chomsky, incoming FCC chair.

Lastly, he said that faculty will once again be asked to talk to their legislators once the bills go to conference committee.

The Faculty Consultative Committee nominates Mary Jo Kane for the Faculty Senate Vice Chair position for the 2006-07 academic year. This person also serves as Vice Chair of the University Senate.

DISCUSSION:

With no discussion, a vote was taken and the motion was approved.

MOTION:

To amend Article IV, Section 1 of the Faculty Senate Rules as follows (language to be added is underlined). As an amendment to the Faculty Senate Rules, the motion requires a simple majority for approval.

ARTICLE IV. RULES FOR COMMITTEES OF THE FACULTY SENATE (Changes to this article are subject to vote only by the Faculty Senate)

1. Ex Officio Members of Faculty Senate Committees

...

- Academic Freedom and Tenure--Chair of the Faculty Affairs Committee; Office of the Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs and Provost; Office of the Vice President for Human Resources; Chair of the Judicial Committee

COMMENT:

The Academic Freedom and Tenure Committee believes its deliberations would be informed by having the chair of the Judicial Committee as a member of the committee, inasmuch as the Judicial Committee deals with specific questions about the tenure code that arise in individual cases. These cases can lead to suggestions for modifications in the tenure code, which is the responsibility of the Academic Freedom and Tenure committee.

DISCUSSION:

With no discussion, a vote was taken and the motion was approved.

MOTION:

To amend Article IV, Section 2 of the Faculty Senate Constitution as follows (language to be added is underlined; language to be deleted is struck-out). As an amendment to the Faculty Senate Constitution, the motion requires either a two-thirds majority of all voting members of the Faculty Senate (109) at one regular or special meeting, or a majority of all voting members of the Faculty Senate (82) at each of two meetings. This is the first meeting at which this motion is being presented.

ARTICLE IV. THE FACULTY SENATE (Changes to this article are subject to vote only by the Faculty Senate)

...

2. Membership

...

c. For the purposes of this constitution, the bylaws, and the rules, faculty shall include professors, associate professors, assistant professors, research associates, instructors, and research fellows on full-time appointments holding a regular appointment as defined in the Regents' Policy "Faculty Tenure." Faculty shall also include clinical faculty on full-time term appointments as defined in the Regents’ Policy “Faculty Tenure.” "Full-time appointments" are defined for this constitution to require the same time commitment of faculty and qualified academic staff.

d. For the purposes of this constitution, the bylaws, and the rules, the term "qualified academic staff" shall be interpreted to mean academic professionals and administrators eligible for election to the Faculty Senate and eligible for appointment to Faculty Senate committees. In order to qualify for election to the Faculty Senate, an academic professional or administrator must meet the definition established by the Board of Regents: "Academic professionals generally parallel disciplinary faculty in having the requisite preparation and specialized knowledge in an academic discipline or field on which practice is based and in exercising independent professional judgment. These individuals may be engaged in teaching, research, and [and] service, as are faculty[.]" Qualified academic staff are those in collegiate units or other campus-based staff holding continuous and probationary appointments or qualified campus-based academic staff with fixed term or annual appointments having completed five years of service at the University. The term "academic staff" shall be interpreted to mean academic professionals and administrators eligible for election to the University Senate (but not the Faculty Senate) and eligible for appointment to all other committees of the senates. Qualified academic staff are also eligible to serve on all other committees and in the University Senate as well as in the Faculty Senate and on committees requiring eligibility for Faculty Senate membership.

COMMENT:

The changes in section (c) are proposed to allow clinical faculty membership in the Faculty Senate. The changes in section (d) are proposed in order to align the constitutional language with new language adopted by the Board of Regents in its Employee Group Definitions policy.

DISCUSSION:

A senator encouraged approval of this motion, noting that the demographics of the University are changing. This motion does not relinquish any authority for tenured and tenure-track faculty, but simply broadens who is eligible to serve in the Faculty Senate. It also makes eligibility more equal, since currently faculty-like academic professionals are eligible, but clinical faculty are not. While this proposal only affects the Medical School at this time, it might influence other units in the near future.

Q: Are faculty-like academic professionals currently eligible for service in the Faculty Senate?

A: Yes.

Q: Would it be wiser to vote on Item 19 first, and then this item?

A: That order of items was discussed, but it was thought that it was best to vote on clinical faculty inclusion first before voting on a maximum number from any one unit.

With no further discussion, a vote was taken and the motion was not approved with only 77 favors in favor and none opposed. This was enough votes to trigger an electronic vote with results reported at the next Faculty Senate meeting.

MOTION:

To amend Article III, Section 1 of the Faculty Senate Bylaws as follows (language to be added is underlined; language to be deleted is struck-out). As an amendment to the Faculty Senate Bylaws, the motion requires either a majority of all voting members of the Faculty Senate (82) at one regular or special meeting, or a majority of all members of the Faculty Senate present and voting at each of two meetings. This is the first meeting at which this motion is being presented.

ARTICLE III. FACULTY SENATE MEMBERSHIP, ELECTIONS, AND OFFICERS (Changes to this article are subject to vote only by the Faculty Senate)

1. Membership and Voting Units

a. For the purpose of electing representatives and alternate representatives, if any, to the Faculty Senate, qualified faculty members and qualified academic staff shall vote within each of the following units of the University, except as noted in section II(1)(b), below:

TWIN CITIES: Agricultural Experiment Station; Agricultural, Food, & Environmental Sciences; Architecture and Landscape Architecture; Biological Sciences; Continuing Education; Dentistry; Design; Education and Human Development; Food, Agricultural, and Natural Resource Sciences; General College; Human Ecology; Law; Liberal Arts; Libraries; Management; Medical School; Natural Resources; Nursing; Pharmacy; Public Affairs; Public Health; Technology; University of Minnesota Extension Service; Veterinary Medicine

CROOKSTON

DULUTH: Medicine; Other [includes non-collective bargaining faculty/academic staff from UMD].

MORRIS

b. Units which have 20 or more individuals (faculty and qualified academic staff) eligible to vote in Senate elections shall have a minimum of two representatives in the Faculty Senate. Units which have 10-19 individuals eligible to vote in Senate elections shall have one representative in the Faculty Senate. Individuals in units which have fewer than 10 individuals eligible to vote in Senate elections may affiliate with another college or campus for purpose of voting in Senate elections and being elected to the Senate. The Clerk of the Senate shall annually review the number of individuals eligible to vote in Senate elections in each unit and report the results to the Faculty Consultative Committee. If the number of eligible voters in a unit falls below 20 but is 10 or greater, both the senators from that unit may serve out their term but there shall be no election for the term that ends first. If the number of eligible voters in a unit falls below 10, the senator(s) from that unit may serve out their term but there shall be no further election of Senate members from that unit unless it subsequently has 10 or more individuals eligible to vote in Senate elections.

The elected members of the Faculty Senate shall also serve as members of the University Senate.

c. No unit may be allocated more than 20 percent of the total Faculty Senate seats available.

COMMENT:

The Twin Cities collegiate changes are being proposed based on the results of the Strategic Positioning process following approval by the Regents at their March meeting. The Duluth change is being proposed based on the fact that this college has been merged with the college in the Twin Cities. The additional of section (c) limits the total percent of representation in the Faculty Senate from any one college.

DISCUSSION:

A senator commented that as strategic positioning continues, there will likely be an increase in large college structures. This proposal preserves the influence from both large and small units in the Faculty Senate, now and in the future.

With no discussion, a vote was taken and the motion was not approved with only 80 votes in favor and none opposed. This was enough votes to trigger an electronic vote with results reported at the next Faculty Senate meeting.

MOTION:

That the Twin Cities Campus Faculty Delegation confirm the reappointment of two faculty for additional three year terms on the Committee on Committees. A simple majority is required for approval.

ROBERT GEHRZ: Professor of Physics, Institute of Technology. University Senate member: None. Senate/Assembly Committee participation (past and present): Committee on Committees, 2005-06.

JOAN HOWLAND: Professor of Law, Law School. University Senate member: None. Senate/Assembly Committee participation (past and present): Committee on Committees, 2005-06; Computing and Information Systems, 1996-97; Faculty Affairs, 2000-02; Judicial, 1995-00, 2005-08; Library, 1995-2006 (Ex Officio); Student Behavior, 1993-96.

INFORMATION:

The Faculty Senate Bylaws specify that the Nominating Committee may present the names of individuals, eligible for re-election, to the Faculty Delegation for confirmation of reappointment without another candidate on the ballot to fill the position.

DISCUSSION:

With no discussion, a vote was taken and the motion was approved.

MOTION:

That the Twin Cities Faculty Delegation approve the following slate of nominees to fill one 2006-09 Twin Cities faculty vacancy on the Nominating Committee. A simple majority is required for approval. Once the slate is approved, a ballot will be distributed for voting.

ARTHUR ERDMAN: Professor of Mechanical Engineering, Institute of Technology. University Senate member: 1986-89, 1997-2000, 2004-07. Senate/Assembly Committee participation (past and present): Advisory Committee on Athletics, 2000-05 (Chair, 2003-05); Committee on Committees, 1988-89; Council on Liberal Education, 2001-04; Finance and Planning, 1989-90 (Ex Officio, 2002-06); Judicial, 1998-2001; Facilities Management, 1986-90 (Chair: 1988-90); Support Services, 1990-93; Finance, 1988-89; Capitol Projects/Campus Master Planning, 2002-06 (Chair: 2004-06).

ROBERT STERNER: Professor of Ecology, Evolution, and Behavior, College of Biological Sciences. University Senate member: None. Senate/Assembly Committee participation (past and present): None.

FOR INFORMATION:

The Faculty Senate Bylaws specify that the Twin Cities Faculty Delegation shall elect by written ballot faculty to fill vacancies on the Nominating Committee from a slate of candidates provided by the Faculty Consultative Committee. Other candidates may be nominated by petition of 12 members of the Twin Cities Faculty Delegation. Petitions to nominate candidates not on the slate must be in the hands of the Clerk on the day before the meeting at which the election is to be conducted. The elected Twin Cities faculty members of the committee whose term continue at least through 2006-07 are:

F. Ronald Akehurst, College of Liberal Arts
Catherine French, Institute of Technology
Gary Gardner, College of Agricultural, Food, and Environmental Sciences
Judith Garrard, School of Public Heath
Jean Quam, College of Human Ecology
Nelson Rhodus, School of Dentistry
Leslie Schiff, Medical School
W. Phillips Shively, College of Liberal Arts

DISCUSSION:

With no discussion, a vote was taken and the motion was approved. A ballot was then distributed for voting.

MOTION:

To amend the 2007-08 and 2008-09 Morris calendars as follows (new language is underlined, language to be deleted is struck out).

DISCUSSION:

With no discussion, a vote was taken and the motion was approved.

MOTION:

To approve the 2009-10 and 2010-11 Morris and the 2010-11 Twin Cities campus calendars.

DISCUSSION:

With no discussion, a vote was taken and the motion was approved.

The meeting was adjourned at 3:49 p.m.