Student Assembly

MINUTES
Cornell University Student Assembly
February 1, 2007
4:45–6:30 P.M.Memorial Room, Willard Straight Hall

I. Call to Order

The meeting was called to order at 4:47 p.m.

II. Roll Call

Present: Mazdak Asgary, Chris Basil, Sarah Boxer, Daniel Budish, Mark Coombs, David Crockett, Shivaun Deena, Kate Duch, Danielle Fernandes, Adam Gay, Roger Gousse, Elan Greenberg, Vincent Hartman, Ryan Lavin, Neal Nisargand, Remy Roizen, Ahmed Salem, Rammy Salem, Sarah Santana, Calvin Selth, CJ Slicklen, Kwame Thomison

Excused: Maddie Ehrlich, Grace Leonard

Also Present: Kent Hubbell

III. Open Microphone

D. Mitarotonda said that the Board of Trustees voted on and approved of designating one Student Elected Trustee seat to undergraduate students and one Student Elected Trustee seat to graduate and professional students. The decision was based on the recommendations of both the UA and SA. The elections will be held in this manner for four years after which the system of designating one seat to undergraduates and one to graduates will be evaluated. Secondly, D. Mitarotonda said that the committee on student life had a lively discussion about the Campus Code. The Codes and Judicial Committee (CJC) will be hosting an open public forum on the Campus Code on Monday, February 5 in the Memorial Room of Willard Straight Hall. He invited SA representatives to attend this meeting in order to engage in open conversation about the code with the UA.

IV. Approval of the Minutes

The minutes were not discussed.

V. Announcements/Reports

SAFC Announcement — M. Erlich

S. Boxer announced that the SAFC help sessions will be occurring this week. The online budget applications are due Sunday, February 4 by midnight and the budget packets are due Tuesday, February 6 by 4:00 p.m. She asked that Student Assembly representatives reserve time in their schedules to attend some of the budget hearings which are coming up soon.

Agenda Change Announcement — M. Coombs

M. Coombs said that the agenda will start going out on Tuesday nights or Wednesday mornings as opposed to Wednesday nights. He said that representatives will still be able to email him after the official agenda goes out if they want something to be discussed. He asked that those wishing to place items on the agenda e-mail him prior to Wednesdays.

Committee Visitation Alert — M. Coombs and E. Greenberg

M. Coombs said that he and Alana will be sitting in on the committee meetings to see how they are going and to monitor committee progress. He asked that the committees provide him with their schedules or the preferred days that they would want him or Alana to attend.

GPSA Update — A. Salem

A. Salem said that he will no longer be able to attend both the GPSA and the dining committee meetings. He has elected to remain on the dining committee because he feels that he accomplishes more there and is thus resigning from his seat as GPSA liaison.

Dining Committee Update — M. Coombs

M. Coombs said that the dining committee meetings have been changed from 5 p.m. on Fridays to 5 p.m. on Mondays (may be changed to 5:30 p.m.). He asked that anyone interested in attending talk to him. Because the committee started meeting earlier this semester the meetings will occur every other Monday as opposed to every Monday. There will be no meeting Monday, February 5. He will inform representatives of the time and date of the next meeting. He said that most of the substantive discussion will begin in the upcoming meeting.

”Housekeeping” Updates — V. Hartman

V. Hartman asked how many of the college representatives were able to contact their deans and whether or not meeting with the deans was successful. The SA previously passed Resolution 11 that says college representatives had to meet with their deans at least three times per semester.

D. Budish said that he met with his dean twice. The third meeting, towards the end of the semester, was canceled. His dean has been very helpful in anything they wished to pursue. D. Budish said that he has a dual purpose in that he is also the liaison for the Urban Planning Group which also requires him to meet with his dean. This semester he will be working with the dean to get an all expense paid Community Service Day. Hopefully the school will be able to fund for the room, music and a bar for those who are of age. He would also like to get funded for a bus for a community service day to do something related to architecture, art and planning in the city of Ithaca.

C. Slicklen said that he met with his dean six times last semester and has scheduled five meetings for this semester. Coffee chats with other students and round table discussions took place. He said that the round table discussions were more exclusive allowing students to really discuss issues they had with the deans.

D. Budish said that he also had participated in a successful round table discussion.

E. Greenberg said that he met with his dean once. She said specifically that she had one project that she wanted him to work on and that project has been completed. He said that he will have to find another project to work with her on this semester.

R. Lavin said that he has met with his dean. They discussed working with alumni to revitalize the lounge in Ives, organizing a weekend where alumni could come to speak and possibly arrange weekend externships, and planning community service initiatives related to ILR. He said that arranging meetings with deans seems to be working out with the smaller schools. He asked if representatives from the larger schools had similar success.

K. Thomison said that this discussion will be reserved for business of the day.

D. Budish announced that he and other representatives will be going to Ivy Leadership Summit on February 2. He offered to talk to anyone interested in the Ivy Leadership Council for the spring. He said that ResLife committee meetings will be on Monday afternoons somewhere around the time period of 4:30 to 5:30. The committee will be moving forward with the Collegetown Community Center. He has initiated an independent study class in order to explore the different types of campus planning that occur. At the end of the class, there will be a five week project that will center on getting the Community Center Project passed. The committee also plans to work on addressing an issue that has arisen between the Co-ops and Cornell’s intervention with them. They will also be addressing handicap accessibility on campus and working to create an off-campus housing website where students can post comments and find feedback about different landlords and housing selections.

VI. Business of the Day

Code of Conduct Discussion — K. Duch

K. Duch said she is holding the discussion to solicit the opinions of SA members regarding the proposed changes to the Campus Code. She will be presenting the SA’s stance on the issue at the public forum held by the CJC on Monday, February 5 in the Willard Straight Memorial Room from 4–6 p.m. The forum will be focused around three main questions. The first issue is whether or not the campus code should, in the initial process, apply equally to students, and staff, including the administrators.

K. Thomison says that no matter what, the code is going to apply to students, so there is not much for the assembly to say on this issue.

A. Salem said that he would support the change because it would be the interest of the students for the Campus Code to apply to the entire Cornell Community.

K. Duch said that the second issue is whether or not off campus misconduct by should be subjected to Cornell discipline. As of now, there is no off campus jurisdiction. She said that she believes there should be off campus jurisdiction.

C. Selth said there are plus and minuses to off campus jurisdiction. He said students are concerned about where the boundaries would fall. For example, if a student is on a Cornell trip and gets in trouble in NYC will that individual be punished twice. However, he said that off campus jurisdiction would be very beneficial in protecting the victims of sexual assault and rape at the sororities of fraternities. Jurisdiction should be extended to protect students of the Cornell community in this regard.

K. Duch said that the final issue is whether or not the office of the Judicial Administrator should be independent. The way it is right now, the JA would have had a president with the concurrence of the University Assembly for a two year term. In the proposed Krause Report, the Office of the Judicial Administrator is incorporated into the Office of the Dean of Students. The judiciary system will have more of an educational focus.

Dean Hubbell said the Office of the Dean of Students has no objection to having the JA’s office merge with theirs. As the Dean of Students, he is not identified personally as the campus disciplinarian. He said he would hope that should the Office of the Judicial Administrator come to the Office of the Dean of Students, he would preserve his role as the advocate of student concerns. However, under a comprehensive review, administrators from UCLA and Princeton made a series of recommendations and questioned the separation of the Office of the Judicial Administrator and the office of the Dean of Students. These individuals felt that merging the two offices would enrich Cornell’s ability to deal with campus behavior as a whole. Most campuses in the country merge the two offices and wonder why Cornell separates them.

M. Coombs said that there has been a vehement response on the part of the students regarding the changes that K. Duch has presented. He feels that this negative response is a result of not adequately explaining to students the reasoning behind the changes. He suggested that the approach on the part of the administration might need to be more of a discussion with students regarding the problems with the current code and how the proposed changes attempt to solve them.

C. Selth said the general response has been that of, if it’s not broken, don’t fix it. The Campus Code is very old and uses old language. He said that extensive review is appropriate in order to update the language; however, the code has served the university relatively well. He feels that just because other universities combine the Office of Judicial Administration and the Office of the Dean of Students, does not mean that Cornell has to follow. He feels that the JA functions well independently because it is viewed as being impartial. He likes the idea of Dean Hubbell acting as an advocate of the students and fears that combining the offices may influence the dean’s image. The combination of the offices would also create a different kind of dynamic in that a large number of students have worked with the Office of the Dean of Students. He is concerned that there is too much of an emphasis on education in the proposed changes. The JA is already concerned with education and does not exclusively focus on discipline. He said that he does not see the need for some of the proposed changes.

R. Lavin said that the administration would have to be very careful in combining the two offices. He views the judicial administrator as the attorney for the president and for the university. Combining the offices might be beneficial in that the JA will begin to act more as a mediator as opposed to an attorney.

Dean Hubbell agrees with the way M. Coombs framed the issue and feels that the emphasis should be on examining the problems. He said that in a lot of ways the current Campus Code does work very well. He feels that the jurisdictional issue is problematic. The misconduct that occurs in Collegetown really needs to be dealt with by the university and as the way the code stands now the university cannot act on the behalf of students who are victimized off campus. He said that the Campus Code does an excellent job of preserving the rights of the accused but does not do as good a job in protecting the victims. The university needs to do a better job protecting the rights of victims and the code should be revised with this aim in mind.

K. Duch encouraged the representatives to read the Krause Report. It outlines the current situation and explains the reasoning for the proposed changes.

Continuation of Discussion on Meeting with Deans

R. Lavin said that resolution was passed later in the semester. He asked if representatives from the larger schools had similar success to that of the smaller college representatives in contacting and meeting with their deans.

S. Boxer said that since the resolution passed late in the semester, it was difficult to coordinate the schedules of the three Arts and Sciences representatives as well as that of the Deans. She knows that the SA representatives would not be invited to meet with their dean again if they attended a meeting with no specific goal or project related to the SA and the college in mind.

N. Nisargand said that he was unable to get into contact with the dean. He and the other representatives from the College of Engineering will try again this semester. He proposed that the assembly discuss this issue again in a month or so. By then every college representative should have had the opportunity to meet with their deans at least once.

S. Santana said that for CALS there is a designated meeting during which the deans meet with students. Last semester, her schedule did not permit her to attend the meetings. She said that she will be able to meet with the deans this semester.

K. Thomison said that the assembly will hold a discussion on this issue in a month or so. The representatives from the smaller schools should continue to do what they are doing and that representatives from the larger schools should try to meet with their deans.

VII. Unfinished Business

There was a motion to move Resolution 25 to the beginning of the list of unfinished business. There was no dissent. The motion passed.

Resolution 25 Regarding Appendix B Guidelines for ALANA — S. Boxer

S. Boxer said that the way the money was broken down was not worded properly. The resolution corrects the error and the designation of money is now correct.

There was a call for acclimation. It was seconded. There was no dissent. The Resolution passed unanimously.

R. 16 Resolution Regarding Tompkins County Bar Closing Hours M. Fagen, A. Gay, and K. Thomison

Resolution 16 was not discussed and should not have been on the agenda.

Resolution 22 Regarding SA and UA Election Rules — N. Chadda, E. Greenberg, and V. Hartman

E. Greenberg said that although this resolution is a continuation from last week, the changes are significantly different from what they were previously. The following statements were added to the election guidelines under the heading of restrictions: (a) No candidate may include any other candidate’s name, a common “ticket” name, or a shared slogan and/or symbol on any promotional materials or within any form of electronic communication and/or media, (b) No candidate shall be permitted to share or pool campaign finances with any other candidate, © No candidate may distribute any promotional materials, send any electronic communication, or utilize any other form of electronic media on behalf of any other candidate and (d) No candidate’s written statement, promotional materials, or electronic communications may be plagiarized form any such items created or distributed by any other candidate. These changes are grouped together in one section to make it clear to those interested in running what their restrictions actually are.

N. Nisargand said that they also added the statement at the end of Article 1 which says that, election rules are subject to yearly approval by voting members of the Student Assembly. He asked that assembly members keep this clause in mind when considering the resolution. They also struck out the second bullet under spending restrictions in Section 7 of the Election Guidelines. This statement is no longer necessary because of statement (b) under the newly added restrictions section.

C. Selth thanked the sponsors of the resolution for setting up a meeting time to discuss and edit the resolution. He supports this resolution as it is written because he thinks it will cause movement away form the hostile ticket culture that has hurts the spirit of the elections and damaged the image of the SA. He appreciates the clear way in which these changes point to violations. He suggested that in the future, assembly representatives meet with the director of housing to get around the UP policy which caused difficulties because of the amount of forms candidates are required to complete.

M. Coombs, who was a previous sponsor of the resolution, said that he had to step back. He sees in spirit what the sponsors of the resolution want for the assembly which is independent thought, good people being able to do good things, and less of the devices that C. Selth just commented on. He fears that the changes being made are radical to the point that they may cause new problems instead of providing the solutions they intend to. After talking to individuals of the Cornell Community, he feels that passing this resolution will cause a variety of problems. He feels that section © for instance will turn election in small schools into popularity contests. He wants to make sure that the assembly makes responsible, proactive changes that are good. He feels that problems in the past resulted from a top-down ticket culture. He said that this resolution oversteps and that the resolution may end up hurting honest people. Although there needs to be reform, this resolution takes too much of a black and white view. He encourages people to take the time to think about this resolution.

A. Gay supports the resolution. He said that the resolution puts the common sense issues the assembly has been concerned about for years into words. A. Gay does not understand why M. Coombs is opposed to the changes because he thought that M. Coombs wanted to end the ticket culture. He warns against clouding the point of the resolution and agrees with points made by C. Selth. He said that his only concern is statement (d) because it will be difficult to determine which candidate came up with the statement first if plagiarism occurs.

E. Greenberg said that plagiarism is defined as copying more than 5 words. The sponsors are trying to prevent blatant copying and pasting. Although it is fine for candidates to have the same ideas, they must think about the phrasing of their statements.

A. Gay asked what would happen if candidates accidentally had the same quarter cards.

E. Greenberg said that he would exercise his discretion to determine what happened and the consequences in such a situation.

V. Hartman said that he had a problem with statement © because it is detrimental to students studying abroad. He said that he had been planning on helping a friend who is studying abroad campaign. Statement © prohibits this. To find a student who is not campaigning to contribute an enormous amount of time to someone else’s campaign is very difficult.

V. Hartman made a motion to amend Section 10 by striking statement ©. The motion was seconded.

R. Lavin said that he hopes a version of this resolution passes today. He feels that it is necessary and will stop a lot of problems. He cautioned against excessive regulation and said that a line needs to be drawn somewhere. He believes that amendments (a), (b) and (d) accomplish what needs to be done. He feels that © is unnecessary and should not be there. Individuals should be able to support their qualified peers who are running for office.

C. Selth said that statement © should stay. It is necessary to killing the ticket culture. He said that he does not understand the point about a popularity contests. The feeling of the election being a popularity contest is also felt during ticket elections because the more popular candidates able to mobilize more people to help them in their campaigns. This resolution ends that and is attempting to ensure that no candidate has an unfair advantage.

S. Boxer agrees with C. Selth and is in favor of leaving in ©. The job needs to be fully done. If statement © is removed, a number of loopholes are opened up. Students who are going abroad can use Facebook to campaign and have friends campaign on their behalf. The resolution still allows candidates to solicit help from other individuals. She said that she understands the concerns regarding the election as a popularity contest; however, it will always be an issue especially in the smaller schools and there is really no way to get around it.

S. Santana said that there is really nothing to level the playing field. Those candidates who have difficulty mobilizing individuals to help and work with them on campaigns will have difficulties regardless of whether or not tickets are permitted. She does not see how statement © restricts hordes of people from campaigning together in the dorms or elsewhere.

C. Selth said that candidates are still able to seek help in campaigning; however, he does not feel that it is possible to motivate even good friends to spend 4 hours campaigning.

V. Hartman reiterated the point made by C. Selth saying that friends of candidates do not have an invested interest in campaigning. It will be especially difficult for students studying abroad to find friends to campaign on their behalf. Candidates studying abroad who have been on the assembly or on class councils have good friends that are on the assembly or councils and this resolution forbids them from soliciting the help of these friends. He said that the resolution also would prohibit him from responding to the e-mails of individuals asking him who on the assembly he would recommend supporting. He believes statement © is problematic because it is difficult to enforce. Statements (a), (b), and (d) are more easily enforceable.

M. Asgary said that there was not one person who ran from abroad last election. He said that asking the assembly to change the election rules for a few individuals is not appropriate. He said that he does not think that statement © should be removed. He mentioned that the assembly passed a resolution last year regarding how assembly members should conduct themselves during elections. The resolution is a preventive measure and he doe not, when it comes to election rules, see people as cunning enough to intentionally try to get around the restrictions. When individuals read the election rules they are likely to think of abiding by them as opposed to immediately thinking, well how do I get around these restrictions.

A. Salem supports striking statement ©. He said that if the assembly disallows candidates from seeking the help of other candidates, it would be very difficult to find other individuals willing to dedicate time to a campaign. He said that leaving in this amendment unfairly advantages the Greek population whose members have the ability to mobilize pledges and brothers/sisters. Other sectors of campus do not share in this ability. He said that striking statement © at least gives the assembly the opportunity to level the playing field.

E. Greenberg said that assembly members can recommend other members in conversation. Statement © just says that candidates cannot put their names on a quarter card with a bunch of other candidate names and that candidates cannot create Facebook groups with one another. He said in response to V. Hartman that if someone e-mails him asking for a recommendation on whom to support, V. Hartman should call them back as opposed to e-mailing them back.

R. Salem said that be believes eliminating statement © would be a good idea. Statement © makes elections more cutthroat. He does not understand the outpouring of concern regarding tickets. He said that if a candidate has an issue with tickets, that they should make their own ticket.

R. Lavin said that he agrees that statement © does do the job in completely eliminating tickets. However, he feels that assembly needs to be cautious is determining how much it is willing to restrict and regulate. He feels that in a way the assembly is moving towards high school.

M. Coombs said that the debate is shifting focus.

There was a call to question. It was seconded. There was dissent. There was a vote to end the debate. The motion to end debate passed. 14 people voted in favor of ending the debate and 6 did not.

There was a motion to strike statement © from the resolution. The motion failed. Statement © will remain in the resolution. 8 people voted to strike the amendment.

E. Greenberg said that the assembly is in a unique position in that that they are elected and are choosing how they are elected. He said that the assembly needs to recognize that not everyone is going to agree with all the changes taking place. What the sponsors are asking assembly members to consider is the general spirit of the resolution. He said that if this resolution is voted down, the vicious cycle of elections is going to continue. If the resolution passes the SA will become a more productive body.

R. Salem asked why the ticket culture is a problem. Tickets make the election more realistic. Independent elections will still result in competition.

E. Greenberg said that the SA is very different from Congress. From a functional point of view, the resolution will enact positive change. There is a stigma against SA due to previous elections. He would like the assembly to start fresh in September. He said that the resolution will result in a tangible improvement and that students will recognize that the elections are different.

R. Lavin said that he does not like tickets. He thought that the previous election was a relatively successful ticket election. He believes that the representatives came together and worked together well this year.

V. Hartam said that he believes statement © was the most problematic. Class councils run election rules in accordance with the election rules of the SA. Unlike the SA however, the class councils also vote for position and if the resolution passes, the president of the class council cannot promote their choice of vice president.

S. Boxer clarified that the class council is not required to use the SA elections rules. They can create there own rules if they want to.

There was a call to question. It was seconded. There was dissent. There was a vote to determine whether or not to call to question. The motion passed. 14 people voted in favor of calling to question.

N. Nisargand said that representatives can still promote other candidates as long as they do not promote them through electronic media or tickets. He believes that this past election was not a successful ticket election. The assembly had difficulty in selecting people for the executive offices. If the resolution passes 18 or 19 individuals will all come to the assembly supporting individual goals as opposed to a ticket.

E. Greenberg said that the resolution paves the way for the future success of the assembly.

K. Thomison asked if there were any members of the community who wished to speak.

J. Rudnick, speaking on the behalf of A. Salem who was not allowed to speak because there was a call to question, said that the principle behind resolution is excellent; however, the assembly should not micromanage the election. The resolution proposes too many restrictions. He feels that there is an issue in having an elected body determine their own election rules.

There was roll call vote. The resolution passed. 13 representatives voted in favor of the resolution. 5 representatives voted against the resolution. There were 2 abstentions.

R. 23 Resolution Regarding Spring Break Bus Program — V. Hartman

V. Hartman said that the bus program is an amazing opportunity for the assembly. There is an equivalent program at the University of Michigan that has been running successfully for the past five years. Michigan’s program is larger than the one that he is proposing and they have no safety net and no administrative funding. The maximum amount of money that the SA could lose is $2700 and the SA would never actually lose this amount. The assembly stands to lose between $0 and $1000. He believes that the bus project is the best program/service that the SA has in front of it and that any great public program needs to have a government body involved.

There was a motion to call to question. There was no dissent. There was a call for acclamation. There was no dissent. The resolution passes unanimously.

VIII. New Business

R. 24 Resolution Regarding Bulk E-Mails — M. Coombs

M. Coombs said that intention of the resolution is to give all members of the assembly the right to e-mail their constituencies. It is currently unclear when an SA representative seeking to send out a bulk e-mail must request permission form the Vice President for Student and Academic services or another administrator. The resolution is codifying the process for sending out bulk e-mails.

D. Fernandes thought the last sentence of Standing Rule 34, “If a simple majority is reached, the Vice President for Public Relations and the remaining members of the SA Executive Committee must, in good faith, take all necessary and helpful steps to try to ensure the successful delivery of the e-mail to its intend recipients,” is unclear. She asked what the executive board would actually do if the assembly approves the e-mail.

M. Coombs said that under the current protocol the executive board can determine that an e-mail is not worth sending and thus kill the e-mail. According to this resolution, if the assembly approves of the message despite the lack of e-board support, the e-board would have to contact the VP for Student and Academic Services.

D. Fernandes clarified that there is still no guarantee that the e-mail will be sent out.

C. Slicklen said that other items of similar nature must go through committees. He suggested adding the Communications Committee to the process of sending out bulk e-mails. The e-mail would be processed through the committee and the committee could vote with the chair making a recommendation to the assembly making the process more informed. He asked if M. Coombs would consider adding the committee to the process in the resolution.

M. Coombs said he would consider it and thinks that it is a good idea.

D. Budish asked if Communications Committee meetings are held weekly.

C. Slicklen said no.

D. Budish said that requiring bulk e-mails to go through the Communications Committee might slow down the process too much. An e-mail getting sent to the entire student body is likely to be important and the process of sending it out should be expedient.

M. Coombs felt that D. Budish had a valid point. He suggested establishing a time guarantee.

S. Boxer said that she does not think that e-mails should be referred to the Communications Committee because it would create a time delay.

D. Crockett said that he does not want to talk about e-mails at SA meetings because the assembly has more important issues to discuss.

M. Asgary said that the Communication Committee would be more than happy to discuss emails. He said that if the dates of the Communications Committee are set early in the semester individuals would be aware of and able to manage timing. He feels that sending emails through the Communications Committee seems logical

C. Slicklen said that the committee is very flexible and does not foresee their reviewing of emails as delaying the process.

The chair ended the debate.

R. 26 resolution Regarding Appendix B Guidelines for WW & OSC — V. Hartman and L. Zhang

V. Hartman the said that the Chair of Welcome Weekend had to leave early. The resolution is a rewording of appendix B. Last year, Welcome Weekend came before the SA explaining all the reasons SA could not do Cornell Night. He said that the SA decided not to do Cornell Night and to put on their own event. The SA organized CU on the Slope where three bands played the night before the first day of classes which was a huge success. It was never placed into the charter for finalization although the assembly agreed on it. This resolution is taking what was done last year and making it final. Last year there was a fall out between Welcome Weekend and OSC because the Welcome Weekend Commission has to provide events the first week of class for all students and OSC provides events for freshman the first week of class. Welcome Weekend and OSC were split in 2004 because there were not enough events on campus for everyone. He said that because OSC plans to move Cornell Night (event the night before classes begin during which all the Cappella groups perform) to Bailey Hall where space will be limited and only freshman will be permitted to attend. Thus, Welcome Weekend could not fund Cornell Night and this is reflected in the resolution.

S. Boxer said that the resolution does not appear to be a change in the wording. It is proposing a more significant change including changing how a large amount of money is being allocated. She does not know if V. Hartman is just allowed to make this change because the budget has already been determined. The issue is more complicated than just rewording something.

M. Asgary agrees with S. Boxer. The money has been allocated by the previous assembly for the next two years. The next time to update this is roughly next fall during byline funding. He suggested a parliamentary workshop to document resolutions.

V. Hartman said that last year the chair and the vice chair of Welcome weekend came to an SA meeting.

VIII.Adjournment

The chair called the meeting into executive session.

The meeting went into executive session.

C. Basil was elected as the new liaison to the GPSA

The meeting was adjourned.

Respectfully Submitted,
Liz Patrun
SA Clerk