Click above to View Action History

OCTOBER 13, 2005

ATTENDANCE: Calvin Hilliard, Chair; Douglas Sutton; Kenneth Baker;
Douglas Hempstead, Michael Coffey

STAFF: Lisa Biagiarelli, Tax Collector; Frederic Gilden, Comptroller, Thomas Hamilton, Director of Finance

OTHERS: Betty Bondi, Democratic Registrar of Voters; Karen Lyons, Republican Registrar of Voters; M. Jeffrey Spahr; Gerald Foley; Betsy Bain, Councilwoman; Michael Dolhancryk, Karen DelVecchio, Director, IT.

Mr. Hilliard called the meeting to order at 8:12 p.m.

1. CLAIMS COMMITTEE: RECEIVE THE MONTHLY CLAIMS REPORT; REVIEW AND APPROVE CLAIMS AS REQUIRED FOR CLAIMS REPORT DATED: OCTOBER 13, 2005

Ms. Biagiarelli reviewed the monthly Claims Report.

Ms. Biagiarelli stated there were three special requests due to the dollar amount, and if the Committee had a question about the first item that was listed, the address of 23 Prospect Street was the location of Fairfield Manor Nursing Home, a 100-bed health care facility that was under tax appeal; they appealed their assessment. The facility was originally valued at $12 million dollars in the 2003 revaluation; however, the property was purchased in 2004 for $1.2 million and the City stipulated the value of the property at $3.5 million. She said taxes were paid based on the higher assessment and now the Committee needs to do a refund. She indicated that the second and third items were there just because of the dollar amount.

** MR. SUTTON MOTIONED TO APPROVE THE REFUND OF TAXES OF FAIRFIELD MANOR NURSING HOME WHICH WERE PAID TO THE CITY OF NORWALK BASED ON THE HIGHER ASSESSMENT.
** MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.

2. NARRATIVE ON TAX COLLECTIONS DATED OCTOBER 13, 2005 – RECEIVE REPORT AND DISCUSS

Ms. Biagiarelli said the numbers were very good. She stated that they were through the end of September and were already over fifty-one percent and were ahead of last year with past due. She wanted to point out that they are now in the cycle of sending past due notices which went out over the holiday weekend and said the Committee members might hear a bit of static about that. She said they will be working on delinquent accounts from now through the end of November, and in the second week of December the second installment bills go out which they are working on now. At the end of the narrative Ms. Biagiarelli stated that at the end of the last fiscal year, and as of the end of June 2005, they had reached 98.6% of the current collections. She said the way the auditors track the numbers, they also track collections for the following sixty days, so if they add July and August into 2005 in addition to what was done through June, they reach 99.1%. She said that was noteworthy and the Committee should make note of it because this was probably as high as it was ever going to get. Ms. Biagiarelli said that the high numbers were partly due to the tax sale that was done at the end of the fiscal year, but the numbers were very, very good and they’ve done quite well.

** MR. SUTTON MOVED TO RECEIVE THE REPORT.
** MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.

3. MONTHLY TAX COLLECTOR’S REPORT DATED SEPTEMBER 30, 2005 – RECEIVE REPORT AND DISCUSS

Ms. Biagiarelli stated that this was included in the previous item.

No action was taken on this item.

4. DISCUSSION ON THE REIMBURSEMENT OF LEGAL FEES AND FINES TO THE REGISTRARS OF VOTERS,

Mr. Sutton said he thought they should have a discussion of this item but should also request a Special Appropriation from the Board of Estimate. He said what they probably should do is review Mr. Cicciarello’s letter in his email of September 23, 2005 where he indicates he is willing to support request for reimbursement of the civil penalties. Mr. Sutton said the smartest thing for them to do was to move it up to the Board of Estimate, separating it into two separate things; one for civil penalties and one for attorney fees. He also felt that the Committee should make a motion because it appears, based on the advice they have received, it is the only thing they can do.

Mr. Hamilton asked if everyone had a copy of a memo sent from Mr. Cicciarello. He indicated that Mr. M. Jeffrey Spahr, Corporation Counsel, in attendance to clarify any questions the Committee might have.

Mr. Hamilton said that the memo from Corporation Counsel indicates several things. First, it is Corporation Counsel’s opinion that it is premature at this point for the Finance Committee or the Council to take any action on this particular item because there is a process that needs to take place. What needs to happen to pay these claims if they are settled, to get the civil penalties and legal fees reimbursed, funding would need to be in place to do this and presently there is no funding. Therefore the first step in the process, according to Corporation Counsel, is to make a Special Appropriation request which would need to be approved by the Board of Estimate and Taxation and then by the Common Council. Mr. Hamilton asked if Mr. Spahr had any legal analysis to add at this point.
Mr. Spahr said the only thing he could add is that under the terms of the Code, in order for there to be an attorney hired by the City other than from the Law Dept., there has to be a recommendation by the Mayor to the Common Council and the Council has to vote for that person. Normally what happens is that when there is a time when the City needs to hire outside counsel, the Mayor has to make a proposal to hire the counsel. He said this has happened in situations of conflict of interest. The attorneys present a brief resume to the Council who then consider the hourly rate and then they vote. Mr. Spahr said it was in the ordinance that there can only be outside counsel hired upon recommendation by the Mayor and approval by the Common Council. He said if there was an additional step that they didn’t mention or want to add, there has to be money in place, and as he and Mr. Hamilton discussed earlier in the day, if the Council were to act on something and there was no money in place, all actions by the Council are subject to the funds being in place. He said there has to be an additional step of these attorneys being hired.

Mr. Spahr said the problem facing them now is that the Registrars hired attorneys before going before the Common Council. He said he was not aware of any incidents in the past where someone has gone out and hired an attorney and then sought to have the Council hire them after the fact. He didn’t know if this would cause additional problems.

Mr. Sutton asked, isn’t there sometimes circumstances that come into play that make hiring an attorney necessary before getting approval from the Council. He said the City has to be flexible because things can back up, where does that fit in. If a matter comes up that needs to be handled quickly, how do they work it? Mr. Spahr said there was no section of the ordinance that specifically provides for that. He said if someone goes out and encumbers the City in an agreement, if someone goes out and incurs charges in the name of the City and there is no funding in place, the person can be personally held responsible. He said he was here to protect the City, it had nothing to do with the people or the incident involved, but the integrity of the process needs to be followed. He said that if every City employee felt that they had some kind of gripe or problem and hired their own personal attorney and ran up a legal fee, and then came back afterwards and said they wanted to get reimbursed for that, there would be havoc. The appropriate process would have been to inquire as to what the process was. Mr. Spahr said if there was a circumstance where someone had to hire an attorney overnight, possibly conceivably if someone needed to hire someone within 24 hours, but he didn’t think this was the case here. He asked what the time frame was between the time the Registrars first received the documentation and this all came to fruition, there were weeks in between.

Mr. Sutton said he remembers a vote recently where the Commission retained Don Reid on a matter and he thought Mr. Reid had appeared before they voted on it. Mr. Spahr said Mr. Reid had appeared but he incurred no cost. Mr. Sutton said he appeared before they approved it. Mr. Spahr said he wasn’t sure. Mr. Sutton said he didn’t know if Mr. Spahr was familiar with the case, but he thought that Mr. Reid had been hired under the same circumstances. He asked Mr. Spahr to look into it to see if the same set of circumstances applied.

Mr. Spahr said that Ms. Lyons had approached him after hiring the attorney and presented bills and asked what she should do with them, did she present the bills to the City. Mr. Spahr said he told her she just couldn’t go out and hire an attorney without approval first. He said he was not here to pass judgment on whether the Council should or should not pay the attorney’s fees. He wanted to make it clear he was not there to testify against Ms. Bondi or Ms. Lyons; he was there to say that the appropriate process was that they do not go out and hire an attorney without approval because they run the risk of not getting reimbursed. He said that in addition to getting the funds in place, it will probably be necessary for the Common Council also to vote to appoint the attorneys retroactively. He wanted it noted that he was not passing judgment on anyone.

Mr. Hempstead said that it was his experience that it was okay to go out and hire an attorney as he did through the Corporation Counsel’s office and that if someone in that office gave their blessing then it was okay. He asked who the Registrars of Voters reported to, who was their direct supervisors. Mr. Spahr said that was an issue that has been batted around for some time, but he was not there to address that at this time. He stated that the Registrars were elected officials and that they would have to look into the indemnification statutes of the State. He said that Mr. Cicciarello, after having looked at 7-101A, 7-465 and also the provisions of the Norwalk City Ordinance that deal with the reimbursement of employees and officials, has indicated that he would not object, in his legal opinion, to reimbursing the individuals for the penalties, to have the City pay.

Mr. Hempstead asked if the City was approached by either of the two Registrars to act in their defense. Mr. Spahr said that, eventually, yes the City was approached but he wasn’t totally sure. He didn’t think the City was approached in the absence of their attorneys, but the Committee would have to ask the Registrars that. He said there were some negotiations that went on, that Mr. John Milici was involved for Ms. Lyons and Mr. Michael Corcillo for Ms. Bondi, and Mr. Cicciarello was kept apprised of it, and at some point those individuals together knocked out a settlement.

Mr. Hempstead said he wasn’t talking about the settlement, but in the very beginning when the issue first came up, when the decision was made that the Registrars would need some kind of legal defense, was the City approached. Mr. Spahr said he did not know. Mr. Sutton asked if the money was in place, would it be up to them to choose the counsel or is there another process involved there. Mr. Spahr said there was a statute in the Connecticut General Statutes, Section 7-1-1a that provides that municipalities must defend and hold harmless and defines a list of individuals. He said the statute had a particular nuance as it pertains to employees versus officials, he didn’t want to say as he didn’t have it committed to memory, but covered individuals are entitled to be indemnified and to be held harmless if they have legal representation. He said there were certain exceptions where the City would not have to pay, and that would be if the actions were willful, wanton, intentional; or a violation of civil rights. What the process is, if the City feels that the action of the person might subject the City to liability due to a willful, wanton, intentional reckless or violation of civil rights, at that point the City would go and get outside counsel and would have to pay for that outside counsel. The statute provides that, if ultimately judgment is entered against the individual in a willful, wanton, intentional reckless or violation of civil rights, the City does not have to pay the damages since it hired outside counsel and in addition, can ask the employees to pay them back for the attorney that was hired. Mr. Spahr said this would be seen sometimes in the case of a claim of police wrongdoing. If the City saw that an individual was involved in a fender bender, for example, where it was cleared as negligence, then it was not even a question, the City just files an appearance because it is just a negligence claim. The distinction is in between the willfull and wanton potential. The general public policy is, that municipalities should not be required to pay punitive damages, the judicial theory being that if punitive damages are assessed for the benefit of the public the public doesn’t have to suffer some intentional act that’s made against the individual. If the punitive damages are assessed back against the municipality, then what is really happening is the public is being punished because they are the taxpayer.

Mr. Baker asked if Mr. Spahr was in attendance only to speak about the process. Mr. Spahr said he was there because Mr. Cicciarello wasn’t able to make the meeting. Mr. Hempstead said the reason Mr. Spahr was here was to discuss the issue of whether or not there was the proper authorization for hiring the attorney. He asked if Mr. Spahr, or anyone else, was prepared to discuss the whole issue about the Registrar of Voters. Mr. Spahr said he was here only to answer questions about procedure. He said he was not there to judge or to make any statement about whether or not the money should or should not be reimbursed, he was not there to address any question about whether or not the status of the Registrars or any of the other elected officials come within the indemnification clause.

Mr. Hempstead asked if the Council had the ability to hire attorneys. Mr. Spahr said he wasn’t sure about that. Mr. Hempstead asked doesn’t the Law Dept. have funds available to hire an outside attorney and a list of authorized attorneys to select from. Mr. Spahr said there wasn’t a preferred list of attorneys to litigate other than tax, the City hires an outside attorney to go after a person to collect taxes and the delinquent taxpayer has to pay the legal fees. He said there was no real standard list of litigation attorneys, he thought attorneys were hired on a case-by-case basis. He said that every time he needed to hire an outside attorney, he had to approach the Council.

Mr. Hilliard asked the Registrars if they had approached the City to request legal services from Corporation Counsel. Ms. Bondi said that they both approached the City but she could only speak about her own experience. She said she had gone to Mr. Cicciarello and discussed it, she said she was panicked and upset. She stated her intention was to protect the voters, that the State conversion of their files was not perfect and she did not want to use the file and jeopardize the election. She said Mr. Cicciarello told her face-to-face he could not represent her. She said he asked her if she had spoken with an attorney. She said she had, but she had not hired an attorney. She said Mr. Cicciarello then picked up the phone and called Mr. Corsello and spoke to him as if Ms. Bondi had already hired him. Ms. Bondi said that Mr. Cicciarello basically hired Mr. Corsello on her behalf.

Ms. Lyons said that on October 20 or 21, 2004 she received a letter from the secretary of Elections Enforcement. She spoke to Mr. Spahr in the hallway and asked if the City would represent them or should they hire attorneys. She said Mr. Spahr indicated they should hire attorneys by themselves. Mr. Spahr said he’d inform Mr. Cicciarello; Mr. Cicciarello called down and she and Ms. Bondi went up for a meeting and Mr. Spahr sat in with them in that meeting. She said they were instructed to write a letter which was sent out on October 25, 2005. She then met with Mr. Cicciarello to review the letter that she was sending out. On October 26 the Mayor sent out a press release saying he had been aware of the situation for the past three days. October 28, in an email from Mr. Cicciarello. On December 28 she met again with Mr. Cicciarello who said he couldn’t represent theme due to a conflict. She said at that time she would use Mr. John Milici if the City of Norwalk did not represent the Registrars of Voters. Ms. Lyons then sent an email at 11:39am on January 3, 2005 asking for clarification which said she’d appreciate an answer regarding representation by an outside attorney, and if there was a conflict it would seem prudent for the Registrars of Voters to be told that they could hire an outside representative at cost to the City. Ms. Lyons said this had been the case with Ms. Ann Artell, previous Registrar of Voters, and Ms. Mary Keegan, Town Clerk. She said that at 12:14 p.m. on January 3, 2005 she received a response from Mr. Cicciarello saying he had already consulted which was not true. Ms. Lyons said she then consulted Mr. Milici who wrote a letter dated January 3, which Mr. Cicciarello received on January 4 or 5, which states “let this letter serve as affirmation that this is not true, that the reason Ms. Lyons and Ms. Bondi have consulted with outside counsel is because of the recognition on their part, of the claim. Then he goes on to say the vague perception of conflict of interest in support of a proposition in the office of Corporation Counsel is not able to represent the Registrars, the City permits both Registrars to seek independent counsel at the City’s expense to defend them in the matter, left for the conflict of interest you assert, which was in the province of the City. She said that Mr. Milici was requesting that the Corporation Counsel, rather than himself, represent the Registrars of Voters.

Ms. Lyons said she and Ms. Bondi spoke with him a number of times because the consent agreement that was given by Collections Enforcement made claims that were also untrue. She said that Ms. Karen DelVecchio and Mr. Frank Sarno of the IT Dept. worked diligently for the past two years with the State, trying to get the system up and running. She said that in the information packets she distributed to the Committee they will also see that she presented to the Common Council at the budget hearing in April 2004 showing that half of you were taken off the voter rolls by the Secretary of State’s conversion. The State provided a second conversion at which the street ranges were incorrect. The Registrars’ office continued to work with the State to try to make these corrections so the integrity of the voter rolls was preserved and the election could go forward. Ms. Lyons said that in the complaint against herself and Ms. Bondi, it was explained that a third conversion was done. On December 7, sitting at a table at Elections Enforcement with Mr. Sarno, Ms. Bondi, and Mr. Bondi, they all asked specifically when was the third conversion done in Norwalk. The State’s IT person sat there and said the conversion was done but was never put into production. Ms. Lyons said they could not have used that system for the State, and out of Fairfield County there was only one town that did use it for the Federal election for their official voter list and that was Fairfield.

Ms. Lyons said that she and Ms. Bondi have stated that their job is to protect the integrity of the voter rolls and to make sure they preserve the integrity of every election, even if it costs them personally out of their own pockets.

Mr. Baker said he wanted to verify that each of the Registrars were fined $1,500.00 and that the outside counsel fees were $2,000.00 each for a total of $7,000.00. Ms. Bondi said that was correct. Mr. Baker said this didn’t seem to fall into a willful or wanton category. He asked if, when the Committee makes the request to send this to the Board of Estimate, then it goes back to the Council. Mr. Hamilton said yes.

** MR. HEMPSTEAD MOVED TO REQUEST A SPECIAL APPROPRIATION OF A SUM NOT TO EXCEED $3,000.00 TO PAY FOR FINES INCURRED BY THE REGISTRARS OF VOTERS.
** MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.

** MR. BAKER MOVED TO REQUEST THE COMMON COUNCIL TO APPROVE THE HIRING OF MR. JOHN MILICI AND MR. MICHAEL CORSELLO TO REPRESENT THE REGISTRARS OF VOTERS.
** MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.

** MR. HEMPSTEAD MOVED TO REQUEST A SPECIAL APPROPRIATION OF A SUM NOT TO EXCEED $4,000.00 FOR THE REIMBURSEMENT OF THE REGISTRARS OF VOTERS COUNSEL FEES.
** MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.

5. FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY: REVISED CELL PHONE POLICY: REVISED SECTION 5.2 OF THE CITY’S EXISTING CELL PHONE POLICY AS FOLLOWS: DELETE, LAST SENTENCE: THE USE OF A CITY- OWNED CELLULAR PHONE IS PROHIBITED WHILE OPERATING A MOVING VEHICLE.
REPLACE WITH: EMPLOYEES MAY USE A CITY-OWNED CELLULAR PHONE IN A MOVING VEHICLE, PROVIDED THERE IS COMPLIANCE WITH P.A. NO. 05-159, THE CELLULAR PHONE ACT.

For informational purposes only. No action was taken on this item.

6. TO APPROVE THE 2005/2006 DESKTOP REFRESH PROGRAM WITH THE FOLLOWING ACTIVITIES:

A. AUTHORIZE THE PURCHASING AGENT TO ISSUE PURCHASE ORDERS TO DELL COMPUTER CORPORATION FOR 54 PERSONAL COMPUTER WORKSTATIONS, DELL QUOTE 245643407, DATED 9/21/05, ACCORDING TO CITY IT DEPARTMENT SPECIFICATIONS FO RAN AMOUNT NOT OT EXCEED $54,056.16 ACCOUNT 09060600-5777-C0375 (IT CAPITAL) AND FORWARD TO THE COMMON COUNCIL FOR FURTHER ACTION. (DESKTOP TECHNOLOGY REFRESH)

** MR. HEMPSTEAD MOVED TO AMEND THE ABOVE ITEM BY ADDING TWO ADDITIONAL DELL COMPUTERS FOR THE COMMON COUNCIL CAUCUS ROOMS TO MAKE A TOTAL OF 56 COMPUTERS, INCLUDING WIRING, LICENSES, SOFTWARE, ETC.
** MOTION CARRIED WITH THREE IN FAVOR, ONE OPPOSED (MR. BAKER) AND ONE ABSTENTION (MR. BAKER).

B. AUTHORIZE THE PURCHASING AGENT TO ISSUE PURCHASE ORDERS TO DELL COMPUTER CORPORATION FOR 30 WORKSTATION MONITORS, DELL QUOTE 244299723, DATED 9/14/05, ACCORDING TO CITY IT DEPARTMENT SPECIFICATIONS FOR AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $7, 624.50 ACCOUNT 09060600-5777-CO375 (IT CAPITAL) AND FORWARD TO THE COMMON COUNCIL FOR FURTHER ACTION. (DESKTOP TECHNOLOGY REFRESH/LIBRARY MONITORS)

** MR. HEMPSTEAD MOVED TO AMEND THE ABOVE ITEM BY ADDING TWO ADDITIONAL MONITORS FOR THE COMMON COUNCIL CAUCUS ROOMS, BRINGING THE TOTAL TO 32 WORKSTATIONS.
** MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

C. AUTHORIZE THE PURCHASING AGENT TO ISSUE A PURCHASE ORDER TO A QUALIFIED VENDOR FOR THE INVENTORY, SANITATION, PREPARATION FOR RESALE AND/OR RESPONSIBLE DISPOSAL OF OBSOLETE ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH CITY PROCUREMENT GUIDELINES FOR AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $8,000.00 ACCOUNT 09060600-5777-C0375 (IT CAPITAL) AND FORWARD TO THE COMMON COUNCIL FOR FURTHER ACTION. (ELECTRONIC ASSET DISPOSAL PROGRAM)

** MR. HEMPSTEAD MOVED TO APPROVE.
** MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.

D. AUTHORIZE THE PURCHASING AGENT TO ISSUE PURCHASE ORDERS FOR THE REPLACEMENT OF UP TO 15 AGING PRINTERS FOR AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $8,475.00 ACCOUNT 09060600-5777-C0375 (IT CAPITAL) AND FORWARD TO THE COMMON COUNCIL FOR FURTHER ACTION. (DESKTOP TECHNOLOGY REFRESH/PRINTERS)

** MR. HEMPSTEAD MOVED TO AMEND THE ABOVE ITEM BY ADDING TWO ADDITIONAL PRINTERS FOR THE COMMON COUNCIL CAUCUS ROOMS FOR AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED A TOTAL OF $8,975.00.
** MOTION CARRIED WITH THREE IN FAVOR, ONE OPPOSED (MR. SUTTON) AND ONE ABSTENTION (MR. BAKER).

E. AUTHORIZE THE PURCHASE OF SOFTWARE PACKAGES FOR THE TWO ADDITIONAL COMPUTERS FOR THE COMMON COUNCIL CAUCUS ROOMS IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $1,000.00

Mr. Hempstead added this item to the agenda after a prolonged discussion with Ms. DelVecchio regarding the purchase of two computers, two printers and software for both Common Council Caucus Rooms, in addition to the original authorization requested.

** MR. HEMPSTEAD MOVED TO APPROVE THE PURCHASE OF SOFTWARE PACKAGES FOR THE TWO ADDITIONAL COMPUTERS FOR THE COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $1,000.00.
** MOTION PASSED WITH THREE IN FAVOR, ONE OPPOSED (MR. BAKER) AND ONE ABSTENTION (MR. SUTTON).

7. AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR, ALEX A. KNOPP, TO EXECUTE A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING WITH THE NORWALK TRANSIT DISTRICT SO THAT THE CITY COULD ACCEPT REIMBURSEMENT FROM THE NORWALK TRANSIT DISTRICT AS CONSIDERATION FOR ITS BEING INTEGRATED IN THE CITY’S MUNICIPAL AREA NETWORK.

** MR. HEMPSTEAD MOVED TO APPROVE.
** MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

8. AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR, ALEX A. KNOPP, TO EXECUTE A CONTRACT WITH A LOW BIDDER TO RE-WIRE CITY HALL AND THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT BUILDINGS WITH UP-TO-DATE DATA WIRING (CAT 6). This NEW WIRING WILL SUPPORT THE VoIP TELEPHONE SYSTEM THAT IS BEING INSTALLED. ACCOUNT 09060600-5777-CO375.

** MR. HEMPSTEAD MOVED TO APPROVE.
** MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

9. AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR, ALEX A. KNOPP, TO EXECUTE A CONTRACT AMENDMENT WITH RCC CONSULTANTS IN THE AMOUNT OF $9,655 TO PREPARE NECESSARY DOCUMENTS FOR APPROVAL OF NEXTEL TRANSITION PLAN.. RE: RADIO COMMUNICATIONS.

** MR. HEMPSTEAD MOVED TO APPROVE.
** MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

10. APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS FINANCE COMMITTEE MEETING: SEPTEMBER 8, 2005.

** MR. HILLIARD MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 8, 2005 AS WRITTEN.
** MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

11. ADJOURNMENT

** MR. HILLIARD MOVED TO ADJOURN THE MEETING.
** MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY>

The meeting was adjourned at 10:07 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Linda J. Hayes
Telesco Secretarial Services