Student Assembly

MINUTES
Cornell University Student Assembly
May 3, 2007
4:45- 6:30 P.M.
160 Day Hall

I. Call to Order

The meeting was called to order at 4:48 p.m.

II. Roll Call

Present: Mazdak Asgary, Chris Basil, Sarah Boxer, Daniel Budish, Mark Coombs, Shivaun Deena, Kate Duch, Danielle Fernandes, Adam Gay, Elan Greenberg, Vince Hartman, Ryan Lavin, Grace Leonard, Neal Nisargand, Remy Roizen, Ahmed Salem, Rammy Salem, Calvin Selth, CJ Slicklen, Kwame Thomison, Gene Weinstein

Excused: Maddie Ehrlich, Sarah Santana

Unexcused: David Crockett, Jos� Gonzales, Roger Gousse

III. Open Microphone

M. Coombs asked if any members of the audience wished to speak.

Rebecca Lee, 2008, said that a group of Asian American student leaders met with administrators, including VP Susan Murphy, over the past week to discuss the lack of institutional recognition for Asian American students at Cornell. In 2004 a task force report on Cornell’s Asian American students, revealed that Asian students made up the majority of suicides over the past decade. The Asian American student population is the least satisfied and have been victims of biased related incidents. The task force made a series of recommendations that the administration has yet to act on. The recommendations include (1) creating a community center for those interested in Asian American issues, (2) establishing a staff position to address the needs of the Asian American students, and (3) expanding the Asian American studies program to department status. Although nearly a quarter of Cornell students are Asia, the university has not provided services that peer institutions offer. At the past week’s meeting VP Murphy stated that it was the first of many meetings dismissing the thousands of hours that concerned students, faculty and community members have contributed to this initiative over the past decade. The bureaucratic response also dismisses the petition containing 500+ signatures that has been circulated in the past few days demanding effective action and provision of institutional support for Cornell’s Asian American community. The demands are a part of a greater movement on campus for increased opportunities for Asians, Latinas, Africans Americans, Native Americas, LGBT students, and all marginalized communities. Diversity can only be achieved if safe spaces are created. She urged the SA, as leaders and representatives of the Cornell Community, to join them in urging the administration to take greater action.

C. Selth said that this is a very important issue. He said that after meeting with VP Murphy a couple years ago, about a LGBT concern, action has yet to be taken. The administration is very slow in addressing this issue.

K. Thomison said that Helen Zhang brought what R. Lee discussed up when President Skorton came to visit the SA during the fall semester and to his knowledge no action has been taken on the part of the administration. He said that he has just compiled the SA annual report and would like to include the initiative in the section discussing future issues for the SA to explore. The report is important because next year’s assembly will refer to it as a starting point.

A junior who attended the past weeks meeting as well said that the taskforce report was published in 2004. It appears that no action has been taken in accordance with its recommendations and more suicides have occurred since then. Peer institutions have community centers and other services and do not face the same suicide and dissatisfaction rates among their Asian American students. It is time for the administration to recognize this.

K. Duch said that she has heard the concern before and asked what the plan of action will be over the summer and during the upcoming academic year.

The individual who just spoke said that VP Murphy said that the past weeks meeting was the first of many. Those working on the initiative plan to meet with her numerous times next semester. Student support is needed. If no progress is made through consistent discussions with the administration a different course of action will have to be pursued.

R. Lee said that are trying to rally as much support as they can. It is a pressing issue that should be of concern to both students and alumni.

K. Thomison asked if they have approached the University Diversity Council Working Group.

R. Lee said she was unaware of the group.

K. Thomison said that the University Diversity Council Working Group is a committee of about 7 that has direct communication with President Skorton.

C. Selth asked how VP Murphy explained the administration’s lack of action.

The junior who spoke said that VP Murphy was vague. She said that administrative action was structurally complex and seemed to question the validity of Asian American Students’ need for special services.

R. Lee said that VP Murphy has discussed funding issues and suggested that Asian American students use the general services already in place.

V. Hartman, in response to K. Duch, suggested passing a sense of body resolution regarding Asian American Students’ concerns next year and presenting it to the administration with the previously mentioned petition.

The junior who spoke expressed his concern that there is no Asian American representation on the diversity council.

K. Thomison said that the makeup of the diversity council cannot be entirely representative. He thanked the group for coming and said he would include their initiative in the SA annual report.

IV. Approval of the Minutes

There were no corrections to the 4/5/2007 minutes. There was a call for acclimation. It was seconded. There was no dissent. The minutes from the 4/5/2007 meeting were approved.

V. Announcements/Reports

PR Update — C. Slicklen

C. Slicklen thanked all the senior representatives, S. Boxer, N. Nisargand, C. Selth and K. Thomison, for their time and dedication to the SA. On behalf of the entire assembly, he wished them the best of luck in their future endeavors.

K. Thomison said that the assemblies’ reception was held on Wednesday, May 2. He gave representatives who had left early or who were unable to attend their certificates.

Additional Announcements/Reports

V. Hartman said that he was in the process of trying to byline fund the Spring Break Bus Program for next year. To receive funding, he needs to get 1500 signatures and asked the representatives to support him in the process.

K. Thomison thanked V. Hartman for establishing the program. He said that it was a great idea and that V. Hartman did an excellent job organizing it. He said that he still gets e-mails from students and parents thanking the SA for creating the program. It was really a huge success.

M. Coombs echoed K. Thomison. He reiterated how parents continue to e-mail him in appreciation of the program. He said that he has been helping V. Hartman gather signatures and noted how people were actually eager to sign.

R. Salem thanked V. Hartman. He asked how the people seeking signatures could ensure that the same individuals do not sign twice.

V. Hartman said to make individuals aware that they should not duplicate their signatures.

R. Lavin reminded new representatives at the meeting to remember to sign up to meet with him.

A. Gay and the assembly congratulated K. Duch on winning the trustee election.

R. Salem and the assembly thanked Ari Epstein for his hard work over the past year.

VI. Business of the Day

SAFC Update — Sam Miller-Little

S. Miller Little said that he will be presenting the policy changes that the SAFC would like to make. He said that the changes were primarily motivated by issues that arose during the appeal process. New policy states that at least one undergraduate must be present at budget hearings to represent their organization and that only undergraduates and organization advisors can be present at budget hearings. He said that in the past community members who are in no way affiliated with Cornell, have attempted to represent groups at the hearings. The change helps ensure that the money designated for undergraduate organizations stays within undergraduate organizations. New policy also states that if a price quote comes in the manner of an email, organizations must print out the print screen of that email as well as any other attachments. The policy is helping to ensure the validity of emailed price quotes. Other policy changes include placing the word hand before signed wherever the word signed appears, the inclusion of DVDs in the category of books and media and statements saying that electronic signatures are not valid, speakers and performers are limited to one honorarium per visit to Cornell, clubs specializing in the visual arts may apply for art supplies, co-organized budgets and semester budgets may not overlap funding for events, all information pertinent to appeals must be turned in by the time that all appeals are due, any group that has less than 60.0% undergraduate at the time budgets are due may not receive SAFC funding, presidents and treasures must be undergraduates, price quotes in a foreign language must be translated and to be funded travel must occur within continental North America.

S. Boxer said that the assembly is sad to see S. Miller-Little leave and that he did a great job over the past semester. She asked if the SAFC has received any feedback regarding the recently imposed funding caps.

S. Miller-Little said that a lot of groups were affected by the caps. He said that the majority of the big ticket groups put on very large shows costing around $80,000 or $90,000. He did not feel that cutting these groups SAFC funding from $7,000 to $3,000 was very detrimental because the majority of these groups’ costs are covered by ticket sales. Furthermore, the SAFC has met with the most affected groups to discuss alternative funding sources. He said that the SAFC was pleased with the funding caps and did not hear any outright complaints.

R. Lavin said that it was great that the SAFC responded to all the issues that came up in the appeals process. He asked if there was a contradiction in the new policy because there is a clause stating that electronic signatures are not valid and another clause stating that emailed price quotes will be accepted as long as the original email and the price quote are printed out. It might be hard for organization to get hand signed letters from vendors if vendors operate primarily electronically.

S. Miller-Little said that electronic signatures will be accepted as long as they are in form of an email. They will not accept electronic signatures in the form of a word document.

C. Slicklen pointed out that two decimals places were added to the number 60 in the policy requiring organizations to have at least 60% undergraduate membership. He asked if the SAFC has defined what constitutes an undergraduate member of a group.

S. Miller-Little said that the SAFC has not defined what constitutes an undergraduate member. He feels that it is a good suggestion to do so and will try to add it to the policy changes.

C. Slicklen said that he understands the SAFC’s concern in accepting electronically signed word documents. He wondered, however, if it was just as easy to forge an emailed electronic signature. He thinks that the SA should look into accepting electronic signatures because it is equally easy to confirm the validity of hand and electronic signatures.

S. Miller-Little said it is a question of where to draw the line. The SAFC choose to implement the policy he outlined earlier but it can be changed.

V. Hartman suggested having groups submit a list of membership when they apply for funding.

S. Miller-Little said that groups must register with the Student Activities Office. One option is to have the groups declare their membership when they register with the SAO. The membership numbers they submit with their budget applications would have to match those submitted to the SAO.

R. Salem asked what the reasoning behind not funding travel outside continental North America was. He asked what would happen if a group had the chance to participate in an international competition.

S. Miller-Little said that there have not been any issues with international competitions in the past. If issues arise, the SAFC would be willing to examine them on a case to case basis. In the past a cappella groups have wanted to tour Europe. The SAFC thinks that it is unfair to use undergraduate money to fund these groups’ tours of Europe.

M. Asgary asked S. Miller-Little to clarify where in the P&T Handbook the clause banning electronic signatures comes up. It seems as if the SAFC will accept electronic signatures as long as they appear linked to a valid email.

S. Miller-Little agreed and proposed modifying the clause to ban electronic signatures that appear in word documents.

D. Budish thought that adding .00 to 60 would not really solve the problem of rounding that occurred last year. He suggested adding a disclaimer to the application saying that the computer will not round numbers up and that groups must at least have exactly 60% undergraduate membership.

S. Miller-Little said that a disclaimer was a good suggestion and that the SAFC will look into adding it to the budget application.

C. Slicklen said that he agrees with M. Asgary and would like to try to define what constitutes an undergraduate member of an organization. He said that the SA defines a member as someone who attends meetings. If an individual misses three meetings in a role then they are no longer considered a member of the assembly. He said that he thinks it would be appropriate to define members of other organizations in the same way.

S. Boxer suggested that an undergraduate member of an organization should attend at least 3 meetings per semester.

C. Slicklen thought S. Boxer had a good suggestion. He mentioned that if undergraduate members were to be defined by the number of meetings they attend, organizations would have to be responsible for taking attendance.

S. Miller-Little mentioned that some organizations do not meet regularly and may only meet twice a semester. He said that the best option seems to be using the membership numbers that groups submit when they register with the Student Activities Office at the beginning of the year. He said that the SAFC can not be responsible for keeping track of the membership and attendance of all the organizations that apply for funding.

K. Thomison said that there is an administrative burden that is nearly impossible to bear.

R. Lavin agrees with S. Miller-Little and K. Thomison. He does not think monitoring the attendance of organizations is the responsibility of the SAFC.

R. Salem agrees with R. Lavin. He however feels that if the SAFC does define what constitutes an undergraduate member there should be some means of enforcement.

K. Thomison asked S. Miller-Little if he thought that all the groups claiming to have 60% undergraduate membership actually do.

S. Miller-Little said that he really had no idea.

A. Epstein said that from his experience in the office, he has seen a good number of groups with precisely 60% undergraduate membership.

K. Thomison asked if the SA would actually solve the problem by raising the standards.

C. Basil suggested have the SAFC more closely examine the membership of borderline organizations.

S. Miller-Little said that it becomes a question of how cynical the SAFC is.

V. Hartman suggested that groups submit a list of their members’ signatures with the budget application.

C. Selth said that he thinks that the current system is fine. Both the SAFC and the student organizations spend a great deal of time preparing and analyzing there budgets. Monitoring and proving attendance would be an administrative burden on both the SAFC and the student groups.

A. Salem agreed with C. Selth. The administrative burden seems too difficult to meet.

There was a motion to approve the changes. It was seconded. There was dissent. There was a hand vote. The changes were approved.

S. Miller-Little read the list of newly selected SAFC commissioners and announced that M. Ehrlich was elected to be the new co-chair on Monday, April 30. Twelve new members were selected.

There was a call for acclimation. It was seconded. There was no dissent. The new members and the new co-chair were approved.

R. 44 Resolution Regarding the SA Annual Report — K. Thomison

K. Thomison gave a quick overview of the Student Assembly Annual Report which is an outline of what the assembly accomplished over the past year. He said that all SA members have a lot to be proud of. He said that the SA started out strong by ensuring that students were able to enjoy homecoming at no cost for the first time. Other activities of the SA included the Pilot Spring Break Transportation Program, continued improvement on the Collegiate Readership Program, and the expansion of Students Helping Students. In conjunction with other groups, the SA reallocated the trustee seats, reviewed the Krause Report, worked to solidify Cornell’s commitment to sustainability, conducted forums with the President of the University, endorsed the Big Red Review website, and made the ISBN numbers of textbooks available to students through the Cornell Store’s information database. He said that the report also includes an overview of the activities of the SA committees which include the Committee on Dining Services, the Residence and Campus Life Committee, the Joined Assemblies Financial Aid Review Committee, the Student Assembly Finance Commission, the Environmental Committee, the Transportation Ad-hoc Committee and the Charter Review Ad-hoc Committee. Also mentioned are elections changes, referenda and important topics of discussion and future issues. He asked that representatives email him if they would like to add something to the report. The report is very important. Before it can be presented to the Cornell Community and President Skorton it must be approved by the majority of the assembly. The resolution indicates that the SA approves the report and outlines ways to get the word out about it. Students have suggested that the SA needs to more effectively communicate their accomplishments which this report aims to do. All members of the Cornell Community have access to the report.

There was a call for acclimation. It was seconded. There was no dissent. R. 44 passed unanimously.

VII. Unfinished Business

R. 42 Resolution Regarding the IDI — M. Coombs, S. Deena, R. Gousse, V. Hartman, C. Ceveille, A. Salem, R. Salem, S. Santana, C. Slicklen, M. Sweeny, J. Weitz, M. Zolnowski

A. Salem said that this resolution supports the Intellectual Diversity Initiative. It is an important initiative and one that the sponsors believe the student assembly should support. Last week some members raised concerns that the resolution was politically biased. Since then, additional individuals from various political spheres have signed on as sponsors. He said that the second principle stated in the resolution was altered to make it clear that teachers are not required to teach every viewpoint but rather that students are free to express any viewpoint. The emphasis is on allowing students to freely express and discuss their and others perspectives. He noted that V. Hartman, previously opposed to the resolution, had signed on as a sponsor. The list of signatories indicates the broad support within the SA and that the resolution is a matter of principle rather than a political or ideological issue. He said that he has talked to many representatives and that the resolution has been improved from those conversations.

M. Coombs encouraged representatives to voice their concerns. The sponsors would be willing to discuss issues and find solutions. He said that a lot of people have put a lot of time into drafting the resolution and it is only fair that representatives discuss concerns instead of just voting no.

K. Thomison announced that C. Slicklen had withdrawn his name from the resolution.

A. Gay said that one of his strongest concerns about the resolution is that it provides no recourse for people who feel that they have been victims of biased related incidents. There are many mechanisms in place such as, the Bias Response Program, meeting with department chairs, the deans of colleges, and administrative officials, through which students can discuss issues that arise in the classroom. The resolution in no way clarifies or designs a series of steps to be taken if intellectual diversity is infringed upon. He also mentioned that the entire assembly, as all intellectuals should, supports intellectual diversity. Resolutions could also be passed supporting the freedom of speech or the freedom of religion. However, passing such resolutions is not the role of the SA. He said that last year the SA decided that they would no longer pass resolutions just for the sake of passing resolutions. The resolution at hand has no enumeration of how the limitations of intellectual diversity will be addressed. He also feels that having a list of sponsors does not fully indicate broad political support. He obviously supports the principle behind the resolution but until a recourse mechanism is specified, he does not support it.

C. Selth said that he shares a lot of A. Gay’s concern. Personally, he feels that limitations on intellectual diversity are not an issue at Cornell and passing R. 42 confirms that such a problem exists. Even if it is a problem, the resolution provides no mechanism for addressing it. The resolution does not provide a means of combating limitations on intellectual diversity within the organization of the university. He said that he is offended by the way that the resolution is conflated with the Open Doors, Open Hearts, Open Minds initiative which aims to prevent oppression based on race, gender, religion and sexual preference. He does not think intellectual diversity is a part of the mission of that statement. The resolution also appears to be politicized. He has seen the Academic Bill of Rights presented numerous times in revised versions and that the R. 42 is just another version. He believes that the resolution is empty and biased to a conservative viewpoint.

A. Redman echoed what had already been said. He said that he asked the sponsors last week if there were any mechanisms in place to address student concerns when they feel that they were not permitted to freely express themselves. The sponsors said that there were no mechanisms. However, after doing some research, he found that a Bias Response Program does exist. He looks at the resolution and does not see what it accomplishes. He asked if the sponsors felt that the currently used Bias Response Program was ineffective.

A. Salem said the Bias Response protocol has not been designed to take on the types of problems that the sponsors are trying to address. The Bias Response Program is more educational and also does not provide a mechanism for recourse beyond speaking to the professor. R. 42 is not empty as it makes it clear the students desire a concrete recourse mechanism. The mechanism must be created by the administration and cannot be made by the SA through a resolution. Passing the resolution would show that the Cornell Community is in support of intellectual diversity and that it desires to take the necessary steps to ensure the freedom of thought.

E. Greenberg said that he had met with A. Salem earlier in the week and that they had discussed establishing some sort of coherent action plan. He said the resolution does not appear to have changed since last week and in no way incorporates what he and A. Salem had discussed. He asked what the sponsors thought the recourse mechanism would be and how it would stem from R. 42.

A. Salem said that he had met with next year’s VP of Operations, R. Lavin, after he and E. Greenberg had met. They decided that the best way to move forward is to pass the resolution and create a liaisonship for a representative who would be responsible for moving the resolution forward. He said that he would be willing to run for this position. He does not feel that a formal complex committee should be established because it would be too bureaucratic. More would be accomplished in an informal setting.

E. Greenberg asked why this liaisonship was not put forth in R. 42 if it is the ultimate goal.

A. Salem said that the liaisonship was not added to the resolution because of difficulty in wording. If someone could suggest a wording, the sponsors would be willing to amend the resolution to include the liaisonship. The sponsors also did not include the liaisonship because they felt that the resolution as a statement should pass now. It is the duty of next year’s assembly to follow through with the resolution.

C. Slicklen apologized to the cosigners for not telling them in advance that he would be withdrawing his name from the resolution. He said that he is conservative and agrees with most of the points that the Intellectual Diversity Initiative makes. He said that he is concerned because the SA did not contact any members of the faculty to discuss how they feel about the issue. He thinks that the resolution represents a great idea and will probably vote yes. It is important for students and professors alike to be able to express their viewpoints and come to understand the variety of viewpoints present across campus. He is just concerned with the way the resolution will be executed. If the resolution is voted down, he would like to bring it back next year and discuss it with faculty to glean their opinions. Standing rules state that the SA must contact everyone which the resolution effects and this has not been done.

A. Salem said that he has been in contact with different members of the faculty, especially the government department, although he has not been in contact with the Faculty Senate. He did not bring the faculty support to the meeting because he believes that the SA is responsible to the students. It is also his understanding that the individuals who signed on to the resolution as sponsors put a lot of time into their decision and took a stance because they believe in the initiative. The SA does produce statements and the resolution will have an informal mechanism. He said that he is passionate about the initiative and will take the resolution forward once it is passed. Intellectual diversity is important and not a political issue.

M. Coombs said that when the Academic Bill of Rights came up earlier this year he was not supportive of it because he felt that there was a partisan association with it. What he said at the time was that he supported the ideas inherent to the Academic Bill of Rights as long as no one group of people can claim victory. The Intellectual Diversity Initiative removes the politics from the Academic Bill of Rights and supporting the resolution is really a question of supporting the ideals. He said that intellectual diversity is an important issue to the students and that they are supportive of the Intellectual Diversity Initiative. It shows that the SA is behind the students and concerned with outreach. He said that he believes a lot of the opposition to the resolution stems from the fear of being labeled and he encouraged representatives to rise above and look at the ideals of the resolution.

S. Boxer asked what the recourse is for students who are prohibited from freely expressing there views. She said that in the past, she has not voted for resolutions that did not have a substantive action plan. She hears that it is about the ideals but she does not see any sort of action being taken.

There was a call to question. It was seconded. There was dissent. There was a hand vote. By a vote of 9 to 8, the previous question was not called.

N. Nisargand said that he was a bit frustrated because the sponsors have been discussing a mechanism but have added no mechanism to the resolution. He asked A. Salem to propose a mechanism.

A. Salem suggested, be it therefore resolved that the naming of A. Salem in conjunction with next year’s president of internal operations will create a liaisonship that will (1) report the SA each semester next year to discuss the progress of the resolution and will (2) advocate the IDI to be considered on the administrative level. He asked if N. Nisargand approved of this suggestion.

N. Nisargand thought that he could propose something even simpler. He suggested, be it therefore resolved that the SA creates a liaison to further explore the issue of intellectual diversity.

S. Boxer asked who the liaison would try to work with on the administrative level.

M. Coombs proposed that the specific duties of the liaison be determined by next year’s executive board.

R. Lavin said that he wishes that everyone would stop referring to R. 42 as a political resolution. It really is not. He said that his initial concern last week was the lack of a recourse mechanism, however after talking with A. Salem and hearing what the sponsors are saying, he feels that there is enough of a course of action. It appears that the passage of R. 42 is needed before a more formal mechanism can be established. When looking at the appropriateness of the resolution, he feels that it can be viewed as sense of body resolution. The SA entertains resolutions such as R. 42. He asked A. Salem to clarify what the 4th point meant.

A. Salem said that the 4th point means that the university should not be allowed to discriminate when considering what speakers, programs or other student programs to permit. It states that discrimination should not occur in regards to allocation of funds.

M. Coombs said that president of the SA is like a ready made liaison for this issue. The president could see how the university president and administration feels about the IDI.

K. Duch stressed that everyone supports intellectual diversity and to insinuate that any representative does not is to a degree insulting. She said that her major concern is that the university is not promoting a goal of indoctrinating all the students and it is demeaning to the university to pass a resolution that does not accomplish anything. The resolution provides no evidence that there is a problem and no mechanism for addressing it if there is one. By passing the resolution the SA could potentially insult the university by claiming that there is a problem when no concrete evidence has been documented.

M. Coombs apologized if the sponsors in any way insinuated that representatives did not support intellectual diversity. The sponsors are not trying to insinuate any of the things that K. Duch just mentioned. The resolution is merely trying to say that the SA supports intellectual diversity. If there is any language in the resolution that offends, he asked that representatives point it out so it can be changed.

K. Thomison clarified that there was no official proposal to amend.

R. Roizen asked what the issue was with the Academic Bill of Rights.

K. Thomison said that the Academic Bill of Rights has been brought before the assembly for the past four years and has been voted down or tabled indefinitely each time. People said that they voted it down because they viewed it as a part of a conservative movement. The IDI is not the Academic Bill of Rights but it shares a similar idea. The sponsors of the IDI resolution are trying to disassociate themselves from the Academic Bill of Rights because its creator identified it as conservative.

There was a motion to call to question. It was seconded. There was no dissent.

M. Coombs encouraged people to vote based on what they know is the right thing and to rise above the labeling issue. He asked those thinking of voting the resolution down to really consider what they are voting against. The resolution does not insinuate anything bad about the university but rather shows Cornell’s support for intellectual diversity. The resolution is a positive step in the right direction.

A. Redman said that he feels that a mechanism is needed and it appears that the Bias Response Program is already designed to do this. He does not understand why this program is inadequate.

M. Asgary echoed R. Roizen by saying that the resolution could be looked at as a means of empowering students. The SA has passed numerous symbolic resolutions in the past.

By a vote of 10 to 8, the resolution passed.

R. 43 resolution Regarding SA liaisons to Byline-Funded Groups — S. Boxer and A. Gay

S. Boxer said that the resolution proposes a charter change so a 2/3 vote is required for it to pass. The resolution creates liaisonships to three of the groups that the SA bylines funds. The groups are the Collegiate Readership Program, the CU Tonight Commission and the Slope Day Programming Board. The liaisonships will give members of the SA a chance to become intimately acquainted with the budgets and inter-workings of these organizations’ executive boards.

A. Gay said that all three groups affected by the resolution support it. Improved communication will benefit both the SA and the byline funded organizations. Liaisonships are the first step in establishing a better communications network.

There was motion to call to question. It was seconded. There was no dissent. R. 43 passed by a vote of 16 to 1.

VIII. Adjournment

There was a motion to adjourn. It was seconded. There was no dissent. The meeting was adjourned.